digitally editing manuscript prose in castilian: the...
Post on 12-Feb-2020
0 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
DIGITALLYEDITINGMANUSCRIPTPROSEINCASTILIAN:
THECRÓNICAPARTICULARDESANFERNANDO–ACASESTUDYby
POLLYLOUISEDUXFIELD
AthesissubmittedtotheUniversityofBirminghamforthedegreeofDOCTOROFPHILOSOPHY
DepartmentofModernLanguagesSchoolofLanguages,Cultures,ArtHistoryandMusic
CollegeofArtsandLawUniversityofBirmingham
January2019
University of Birmingham Research Archive
e-theses repository This unpublished thesis/dissertation is copyright of the author and/or third parties. The intellectual property rights of the author or third parties in respect of this work are as defined by The Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988 or as modified by any successor legislation. Any use made of information contained in this thesis/dissertation must be in accordance with that legislation and must be properly acknowledged. Further distribution or reproduction in any format is prohibited without the permission of the copyright holder.
ABSTRACT
ThisthesisaccompaniesthedigitaleditionoftheCrónicaparticulardeSanFernando,
and includes a rationale for and an explanation ofmany of the implications of the
decisionstakeninthepreparationofthisedition.Theeditionisusedasacasestudy
forthedigitaleditingofmedievalproseinCastilianatthepresenttime.Tothisend,
there isan in-depthexaminationof thehistory,contextandcurrentsituationof the
digitaleditingofmedievaltexts,focussingspecificallyonprose,andinparticularprose
inCastilian.Thetextandcontextof theCrónicaparticulardeSanFernandoarealso
studied,toinformthepreparationofitsdigitaledition.
Mycentralthesisisthatthedecisionsmadewhenpreparingadigitaleditionshould
takeintoaccounttheperceivedneedsofeditionusers,includingbothcontemporary
usersand,asfarasispossible,futureusers.Thesedecisionsshouldbeinformedbythe
natureofthetextitself,itscontext,andtransmission,asthesewillaffecthowandby
whomtheeditionisused.Theyshouldalsobeinformedbyanunderstandingofhow
digitaleditionsdifferfromtheirprintcounterparts,inbothpreparationandusage.
ACKOWLEDGEMENTSANDDEDICATIONWritingthisthesishasbeenthemostenjoyablechallengeIhaveeversetmyself.Thereare certain people, without whom, this thesis would never have been completed.Others,withoutwhom,thisthesiswouldneverhavebeenstartedinthefirstplace.Tothem,Ioffermymostsincerethanks.Tomysupervisor,mentorandfriend,AengusWard.ThankyouforaskingmetobepartoftheEstoriadeEspannaDigitalproject,fornurturingmynew-foundloveofdigitalediting,andforhelpingmeinsomanywaysasIwrotethisthesis.Nobodycouldaskforamoresupportivesupervisor.TotheArtsandHumanitiesResearchCouncil,forfundingthisdegree,aspartofthewiderEstoriadeEspannaDigitalproject.TothestaffofLibraryServicesattheUniversityofBirmingham,whohavealwaysbeenfriendlyandhelpfulthroughoutmystudies.ToCatSmithandPeterRobinson,withoutwhose technical support Iwouldstill bestaring at raw transcriptions. To Ricardo Pichel, who proof-read sections of, andofferedideasforimprovingmydigitaledition.AndtoHelenAbbottandManoloHijano,whose carefully-considered feedback when examining this thesis and theaccompanyingeditionenabledmetoimprovethemboth.Totheteamandwannabesoftheproject–BárbaraBordalejo,EnriqueJerez,ChristianKusi-Obodum(mypartner incrime),FionaMaguire,AliciaMontero,RicardoPichel,MarinePoirierandAengusWard–thankyouallformakingthepastfiveyearssuchagreatexperience.Iamproudtohaveworkedalongsideyou,learntfromyou,andtobeabletocountyouamongstmyfriends.Maythenaughtydrawerineachofyournewofficesneverbelackinginbiscuits.Tomymomand stepdad, Julie andPete Evans, and parents-in-law Jane andRogerDuxfield,withaspecialmentiontomymom–withoutyoursupportandbaby-sittingservicesthisthesiswouldalmostcertainlyneverhavebeenfinished.TothemakersofCBeebies–withoutyou,thisthesiswoulddefinitelynotbefinished.Tomyhusbandandchiefproof-readerWillDuxfield–withoutyou,thisthesiswouldneverevenhavebeenstarted.Yougavemethesupportandconfidencetoleavemyjob,and have ensured our housewas not a complete tip, our bills were paid, and ourchildrenwerecleananddidn’thavescurvywhilstIwasbusyrealisingmydream(andinputtingXML).Thankyou.Andfinally,toEricaandImmyDuxfield–mygirls,thisthesisisforyou.Mayyoureaditinyearstocomeandseethatwithhardworkanddeterminationyoucanachieveanythingyousetyourhearton.SorryaboutalltheCBeebies.
TABLEOFCONTENTS Introduction 1 ChapterOne–Editing:AnIntroduction1.0.1Chapterintroduction
77
1.0.2Definitionsofkeyterms 81.1Backgroundtoscholarlyediting 91.1.1TheLachmannianapproach 91.1.2TheBédieristapproach 121.1.3TheAnglo-Americanschoolofediting 141.1.4Socialtextualcriticism 191.1.5Gabler’s‘Ulysses’ 241.2Theshifttowardselectronicediting1.2.1Earlydigitaleditions
2727
1.2.2TheriseofHypertexteditions 281.2.3Robinson’s2003stocktake 291.2.4Theadvantagesofdigitaloverprinteditions 331.2.5Document,textandwork 351.2.6ExtensibleMarkupLanguageandtheTextEncoding
Initiative41
1.2.7Digitallyeditingmanuscriptprose 461.2.7.1Searchablefiles 471.2.7.2Electroniccollation 481.2.7.3Morecontrolforusers 531.2.7.4Includingorlinkingtomanuscriptimages 541.2.7.5Digitalimagesvs.originalmanuscripts 581.2.7.6Financialaspects 591.2.7.7Storageissues 621.2.7.8Providingastableedition 641.2.7.9PreparinganeditionovertheInternetandthe
opportunitiesforcollaboration66
1.2.7.10Copyrightandattributionofwork 681.2.7.11Makingthetoolsfitthejob(andnotviceversa) 691.2.7.12Transcribingfromimagesandthelilypadeffect 721.2.7.13Visualisationofdata 741.2.8Crowdsourcing 77
1.2.8.1Whatiscrowdsourcing?Whatisitspurposefortranscriptionprojects?
80
1.2.8.2Thepurposeofcrowdsourcingforvolunteertranscribers
85
1.2.8.3Recruitmentofvolunteertranscribers 901.2.8.4Sectionconclusion 911.3Editingmedievalprose 951.3.1Authorship,patronage,andemendation 95
1.3.2Marginalia 1001.3.3Scribalpractice 1021.3.4Orthography 1031.3.5Fragmentarytraditions 1051.4EditingmedievaltextsinCastilian 1071.4.1GermánOrdunaandSECRIT 1081.4.2AlbertoBlecua 1131.4.3PedroSánchez-PrietoBorja 1161.4.4CHARTA 1181.4.5JoséManuelFradejasRueda 1211.4.6HSMS 1231.4.7Conclusion 1251.5CaseStudy:TheOnlineFroissartProject 1271.6Chapterconclusion 134 ChapterTwo–TheEstoriadeEspanna:TextandContext2.0.1Chapterintroduction
136136
2.1HistoricalContextoftheEstoriadeEspanna 1382.1.1LineageofAlfonsoX 1392.1.2Alfonso’saccessiontothethroneandhis‘talleres’ 1412.1.3Alfonsineauthority,legislationandthelegaltexts 1452.1.4Thehistoricaltexts 1502.1.5ThewiderAlfonsineoeuvre 1562.1.6Alfonsoandthenobility 1622.1.7Alfonsoandthequestforempire 1692.1.81275:Alfonso’sannushorribilis 1712.1.9Eventsfollowing1275:theissueofsuccessionandAlfonso’s
timeinSeville172
2.1.10ThesuccessionofSanchoIV 1752.1.11Sectionconclusion 1772.2TheinterestoftheEstoriadeEspannaandtheCPSFtoscholarsofhistoricallinguisticsandsociolinguistics
183
2.2.1ThesociolinguisticcontextoflateMedievalIberia 1862.2.1.1Thesociolinguisticcontextpriortothereignof
AlfonsoX186
2.2.1.2TheAlfonsinetaller,Alfonsinesociolinguistics,andthedigitaleditor
193
2.2.1.3Alfonso’spromotionofCastilian:aconcordancestudyofselectedtextsinhisoeuvre
1972062.2.1.4Alfonsoandsociolinguistics:linguistic
conceptualseparation,orthographicreform,language-namingandlanguagepromotion
2.2.2Sectionconclusion 210
ChapterThree–CaseStudy–AdigitaleditionoftheCrónicaparticulardeSanFernando3.0.1Chapterintroduction
215215
3.1TheEstoriadeEspannaandtheCrónicaparticulardeSanFernando 2163.2TheCrónicaparticulardeSanFernando:Textandcontext 2183.2.1Witnessesandeditions 2183.2.2Historicalcontext 2223.2.3Significanceofthechronicle 2233.2.4ThepresentationofFernandoIII 2263.2.5Structure,keyfeaturesandsources 2273.2.6WhatconstitutestheCPSF? 2323.3Edition(s)anddiscussion 2363.3.0.1Manuscriptsusedtocreatetheedition 2373.3.1Version1:Transcriptions–preparationandpresentation3.3.1.1Transcribersandwitnesses
3.3.1.2Crowdsourcing3.3.1.3Basetext3.3.1.4TranscriptionGuidelines
243244245246247
3.3.2EditionsVersion2a:Collatededition
259259
Version2b:Reader’stext 268Version2c:Digitalcriticaledition 2753.3.3Version3:ModernEnglishtranslationwithannotations 2843.3.4Manuscriptimages 2953.3.5Opportunitiesforfurtherstudy 2983.3.5.1Otherfeatures 2983.3.5.2Printedition 300Conclusion 302
LISTOFFIGURES
Figure1: Screenshot of f.20v ofEstoria de Espanna Q (BNE 5795)partwaythroughtranscriptiononTextualCommunities.
71
Figure2: Stemma showing the relationship between the royalversions of the Estoria de Espanna, reproduced fromBautista(2006)
176
Figure3: ExcerptfromD,BibliotecaNacional10273,f.36r 242
Figure4: Presentationofthetranscription(expandedoption)ofE2f.317v.
259
Figure5: Table comparing div 1048 rubric as it appears in all fivewitnesses
263
Figure6: ScreenshotofthecollationwithinthedigitalCPSF. 267
Figure7: Presentationofthecriticaledition. 282
Figure8: Screenshotshowinghowthetranslationcanbereadinparallelwithotherversionsoftheedition
287
LISTOFABBREVIATIONSAHRC ArtsandHumanitiesResearchCouncilCHARTA CorpusHispánicoyAmericanoenlaRed:TextosAntiguosCPSF CrónicaparticulardeSanFernandoDOSL DictionaryoftheOldSpanishLanguageEDIT EstoriadeEspannaDigitalProject,‘EstoriaProject’ESTS EuropeanSocietyforTextualScholarshipHTR HandwrittentextrecognitionHSMS HispanicSeminaryofMedievalStudiesHTML HyperTextMarkupLanguageIGNTP InternationalGreekNewTestamentProjectMOOC MassiveOpenOnlineCourseOFP OnlineFroissartProjectPCG PrimeraCrónicaGeneralRCCP RevealingCooperationandConflictProjectSECRIT SeminariodeEdiciónyCríticaTextualSL SingleLanguagetheorySTS SocietyforTextualScholarshipTB TranscribeBenthamTC TextualCommunitiesTEI TextEncodingInitiativeURL UniformResourceLocatorWYSIWYG WhatyouseeiswhatyougetXML ExtensibleMarkupLanguage2L Twolanguagetheory
POLICIESThroughoutthethesis,toponymsfromtheEstoriadeEspannaortheCrónicaparticular
de San Fernando within modern-day Spain generally appear with an anglicised
spelling.
AnthroponymsofpeoplefromCastile-LeonwhoappearintheEstoriadeEspannaor
theCrónicaparticulardeSanFernandoappearintheirmostcommonforminmodern
Spanish-languagehistorybooks, asdoMoorishnames.Popes, and individuals from
otherplaces,suchasPortugal,Cataluñaandmodern-dayGermany,arenamedusing
theiranglicisednames.
THESISCONTEXTUALISATION
TheEstoriadeEspannaDigitalProjectThisthesisformspartoftheoutcomesoftheEstoriadeEspannaDigitalproject(EDIT
project,Estoria project), otherwiseentitled:Anelectronic researchenvironmentand
editionoftheEstoriadeEspannaofAlfonsoX,KingofCastileandLeon, ledbyDrAengus
Ward of the University of Birmingham.1 This project was funded by the Arts and
HumanitiesResearchCouncil (AHRC)and ran for fouryears: from January2013 to
December 2016. The principal aim of the EDIT project was to produce an
electronically-collateddigitaleditionoftheEstoriadeEspanna(theEstoriaDigital),by
transcribing and tagging five of the forty known extant witnesses of the text. The
eventual aim is to includeall extantwitnesses in subsequentphasesof theproject,
subjecttofundingavailability.Furtherobjectivesoftheprojectincludedthecreation
ofavibrantworkingatmospherewherescholarsandmembersofthepublicareable
to study and engagewith the chronicle, to overcome the confines of print editions
throughtheuseofelectroniccollationandtofurtherscholarlyknowledgeoftheplace
oftheEstoriadeEspannainthecontextinwhichitwaswritten(andrewritten),aswell
astwodoctoraltheses,ofwhichthisisone;theotherwaswrittenbyChristianKusi-
1Theprojectpageisavailablehere:http://estoria.bham.ac.uk/blog/[accessed22/03/2018];thedigitaleditionoftheEstoriadeEspannaisavailableat:http://estoria.bham.ac.uk/edition/[accessed01/08/2017];thefullcitationoftheprojectis:Dr.AengusWard,AnelectronicresearchenvironmentandeditionoftheEstoriadeEspannaofAlfonsoX,KingofCastileandLeon,AH/K000136/1.Theprojectranfrom2013to2016,andwasfundedtothesumof£559,267byagenerousgrantfromtheArtsandHumanitiesResearchCouncil.Thefullcitationofthedigitaledition,includingtranscribers,is:AengusWarded.,EstoriadeEspannaDigitalTranscriptionsandcorrectionsbyFionaMaguire,EnriqueJerezCabrero,RicardoPichelGotérrez,PollyDuxfield,ChristianKusi-Obodum,MarinePoirier,AengusWard,BárbaraBordalejo,NickLeonard,AvellanaRoss,SilviaYustaFernández,v.1.0(Birmingham:UniversityofBirmingham,2016)<estoria.bham.ac.uk>[accessed01/08/2017].
Obodum,2entitled“AlfonsoXandIslam:NarrativesofConflictandCo-Operationinthe
EstoriadeEspanna”andexaminedattheUniversityofBirminghamin2017.3
Workingunderthe leadershipofPrincipal InvestigatorAengusWard(Universityof
Birmingham)were a teamof scholars: the project’s research fellowswereBárbara
Bordalejo(UniversityofLeuven,seniorresearchfellow),FionaMaguire(Universityof
Birmingham)andEnriqueJerezCabrero(UniversityofBirmingham);RicardoPichel
Gotérrez(UniversidadedeSantiagodeCompostelaandUniversidaddeAlcalá)wasa
postdoctoral fellow; theprojectdoctoralstudentswereChristianKusi-Obodumand
me,PollyDuxfield;wewere joinedforshorterperiodsbydoctoralstudentsMarine
Poirier (Université de Bretagne Rennes 2), Alicia Montero Málaga (Universidad
Autónoma de Madrid) and Javier Sebastián Moreno (Universidad Autónoma de
Madrid)aspartoftheirdoctoralstudiesfortheirdegreesattheirhomeuniversities,
and by undergraduate student Lauren Brinsdon (University of Birmingham); the
technicalofficers(softwaredevelopers)fortheprojectwereZethGreen(Universityof
Birmingham)andlaterCatherineSmith(UniversityofBirmingham).Wealsoworked
in close collaboration andwere advised by several other scholars, including Peter
Robinson (University of Saskatchewan),Michael Pidd (University of Sheffield, who
workedasDigitalDirectoroftheimpactsectionoftheEDITproject),andtheadvisory
board: Leonardo Funes (Universidad de Buenos Aires), Francisco Bautista Pérez
(Universidad de Salamanca), Geraldine Hazbun (University of Oxford), Juan-Carlos
2AengusWard,ChristianKusi-Obodum,andPollyDuxfield,‘DigitaleditingandtheEstoriadeEspanna:ofXMLandCrowdsourcers’MedievalHispanicResearchSeminar,23/01/2015,(London:QueenMaryUniversityofLondon,2015)3ChristianKusi-Obodum,AlfonsoXandIslam:NarrativesofConflictandCo-operationintheEstoriadeEspaña,Unpublisheddoctoralthesis,(UniversityofBirmingham,2017)
Conde(UniversityofOxford),ManuelHijano(DurhamUniversity),VirginieDumanoir
(Université deBretagneRennes 2) andPaul Spence (King’s College, London). As is
always the case in academic projects, countless other scholars provided useful
feedbackandadviceandhelpfulquestionsatvariousnetworkingeventsduringthe
courseoftheproject.4
TheDigitalCrónicaparticulardeSanFernando
ThisthesisaccompaniesthedigitaleditionoftheCrónicaparticulardeSanFernando.
Theeditionisavailableat:www.estoria.bham.ac.uk/cpsf
4Theterms‘we’,‘us’and‘our’inthissectionrefertothemembersofthemainEstoriadeEspannaDigitalprojectteam:AengusWard,BárbaraBordalejo,EnriqueJerez,FionaMaguire,RicardoPichel,ZethGreen,CatherineSmith,ChristianKusi-ObodumandPollyDuxfield.MoreinformationcanbefoundaboutteammembersatTheEstoriadeEspannaDigitalProject,‘EDITTeammembers’,(n.d.)http://estoria.bham.ac.uk/blog/?page_id=133[accessed09/07/2017]
1
INTRODUCTION
Since the advent of digital technology, textual editing has been changing. When
editionsaredigitalratherthansolelyinprint,wecanobserveashiftinwhocanaccess
them,howtheyareaccessed,andhowtheycanbeused.Becauseofthis,thepractice
of editing has evolved, and continues to evolve in order to meet the needs and
expectations of their new and wider users, whilst simultaneously attempting to
continueto fulfil theneedsandexpectationsof theirmoretraditionalusers.Digital
editionsarenotsimplydigitisedversionsofprinteditions,andtheimplicationsofthis
touchallareasoftheproductionoftheedition,fromtheoutset.
Thepurposeofthisthesisistoexploreandexaminethetheoryandpracticeinvolved
in digitally editingmanuscript prose in Castilian, examining specifically howwe as
editorsattempttofulfiltheneedsoftheusersofoureditions.InordertodothisIwill
digitallyeditandanalysetheeditionofthefourteenth-centuryCrónicaparticularde
SanFernando(CPSF),which,aswillbeseenbelow,isachronicleinitsownright,but
isoftenalsoconsideredtobealateradditiontotheEstoriadeEspanna(‘Estoria’),first
writteninthethirteenthcenturyundertheclosepatronageofAlfonsoX.Throughout
the thesis I will argue that it is the role of a digital editor to attempt to fulfil the
requirementsoftheirreaders,intermsofwhowillusetheedition,how,andwhy,and
that theeditorialdecisionstheymakewillaffect this,soshouldbemadewiththeir
audience borne in mind. I will argue that who uses the edition, how and why, is
dependentonboththehistoryofeditingandtheeditorialculturetowhichtheusers
2
belong(whichusuallycoincideswiththecultureofthetext(s)beingedited)1andthe
historyandcontextofthetext(s)itself.TothisendIwillpresentmyeditionoftheCPSF,
alongsideananalysisanddiscussionofit,toexploresomeoftheissuesatplayinthe
practiceofeditingmedievalmanuscriptproseinCastilian,andhowI,aseditor,can
attempttocater formyusers’needs.Todoso, Iwill firstprovidea theoreticaland
practicalbasisonwhichtobasemyedition,initiallyexaminingthetheoryandpractice
ofdigital editing ingeneral, thenmorespecifically thedigital editingofmanuscript
prose,thenmorespecificallystill,thedigitaleditingofmanuscriptproseinCastilian.I
willthenlookatthecontextoftheEstoriadeEspanna,andbyextensiontheCPSF,in
terms of their historical and linguistic context and significance, and their textual
transmission,withaviewtotheimpactthatthesehaveonthedigitaleditionofthe
CPSF(meaningbothitspreparationandpotentialusage),andtheeditorialdecisionsI
tookwhencreatingtheedition.
Thesischapters
InChapterOne,Iwillgiveatheoreticalbackgroundtodigitalediting,asafoundation
formyeditionoftheCPSF.Thechapterwillbedividedintotwosections.SectionOne
will focuson thehistoryandpracticeof editing: Iwill initiallygiveanoverviewof
relevant textual scholarshipbydescribinga short and simplifiedhistoryof editing,
starting with conventional print editions, and moving onto digital editions. I will
1BythisImeanthateditionsofItaliantextsaremostlikelytobeaccessedbyItalianscholarsandnon-experts,whoareaccustomedtotheeditorialstylemostcommoninItaly;likewiseCastiliantexts,Castilianscholarsandnon-experts,andtheeditorialstylemostcommoninSpain,andsoon.
3
examinethenatureoftextualediting,andshowthatdifferentschoolsofprinteditors
andthereadersofprinteditionshavecometoexpecttheireditionstosharecertain
featureswithinthemethodologiesoftheirproduction,andthatthisnaturallyaffects
thewayinwhichaprinteditioncanbeutilised,butalsoaffectsthewaysinwhichthe
enduserexpectstobeabletoutilisesuchanedition:differentaudienceshavedifferent
requirements and expectations, which both form and are formed by the editors’
methodology within different schools of editing. To illustrate this, I will look
specificallyatHansWalterGabler’seditionofJoyce’sUlysses;foryearsthiswasseen
as extremely problematic by scholars in the Anglo-American school and remains
notorious–onecannotmentiontheeditionwithoutmakingreferencetothedebateit
caused.AsGreethamhasexplained,andasIwillcitebelow,thedebatecanbepartially
putdowntoamisunderstandingofGabler’smethodologybyhisdetractors,coupled
withGabler’spartial failure tomarry themethodologiesof twoschoolsof editing,2
showingthattheexpectationsofusersofeditionswithinanygivenschoolareshaped
bythenormsandtraditionsofthatschool–whenaneditiondoesnotfitinwiththese
expectationstheedition(ortheeditor)isperceivedtobeatfault,ratherthansparking
userstore-evaluatetheirexpectationsortoconsiderothereditingmethodologies.
Followingthis,Iwillanalysethepracticeofdigitallyeditingtextsbylookingatwhat
problemscanbesolved,butalsowhatproblemscanbebroughtabout,bythecreation
ofelectroniceditions. Iwillestablishsomepossibilities fordigitaleditors,andhow
someoftherestrictionsplacedonprinteditorsforpracticalpurposesarenotalways
2DavidGreetham,TextualScholarship–AnIntroduction(NewYorkandLondon:GarlandPublishingInc,1994)(originalpublication1992)p.354
4
somuchofanissueforelectroniceditors.Asasimpleexample,adigitaleditorisable
toincludemanymoreeditorialcommentsthanaprinteditorcan,sinceaprinteditor
mustweighupthebenefitstotheuseroftheeditorialcommentagainsttheveryreal
possibility that toomanycommentsprintedas footnotesorendnoteswillmakethe
editiondifficulttoread,whilstadigitaleditorcanallowuserstochoosewhetherornot
todisplayeditorialnotesbyusingtoolssuchasmouse-overboxesandhyperlinked
supplementarymaterial,thereforeplacingthedecisiontoaccesssuchmaterialinthe
handsoftheuser,accordingtotheirownspecificneeds.Iwillalsoexplorethefactthat
in reality, such possibilities are not limitless in digital editing, as may have been
dreamedbyearlyelectroniceditors,butareinsteadboundbypragmaticandnecessary
considerationssuchastheconstraintsoftimeandfunding,showingthatwhilstprint
editors canbeboundby thepracticalitiesof thepage,digital editorsareboundby
different but just as restrictive practicalities. Here I will also analyse the use of
crowdsourcinginthepreparationoftranscriptions,andwillarguethatcrowdsourcing
can be anotherway inwhich the potential audience can access and engagewith a
digitaledition,justatanearlierstageintheedition’sdevelopment.
InsectiontwoofthischapterIwillfocusmoreontheeditingofmedievaltexts,byfirst
exploringthenatureofmedieval textuality toexaminehowthisaffects theways in
whichweeditmedievaltexts,andthenbyusingthedigitaleditionofthechroniclesof
JeanFroissart,theOnlineFroissart,3asacasestudyofthedigitaleditingofmedieval
3PeterAinsworthandGodfriedCroenen(eds.)TheOnlineFroissart,version1.5(Sheffield:HRIOnline,2013),http://www.hrionline.ac.uk/onlinefroissart[accessed24/01/2017]
5
manuscriptprose.Thischapterwillformthefoundationonwhichtobuildtherestof
thethesis,whichwillfocusmorespecificallyontheEstoriadeEspannaandtheCPSF,
includingthecontextualbackgroundsofthesechronicles,toallowmetoanalysethe
digitaleditingoftheCPSFasacasestudyofthedigitaleditingofmedievalmanuscript
proseinCastilian.
TheaimofmysecondchapteristocontextualisethechoiceoftheCrónicaparticular
de San Fernando as a case study of the digital editing of amedieval prose text in
Castilian. Iargue inthis thesis thataneditor’sdecisionsshouldbebasedonaclear
understandingoftheneedsandexpectationsofherperceivedaudience.Forthis,the
editormusthaveasolidunderstandingofthetextbeingedited,includingitstextual
transmissionandsignificanceforscholarshipandmorewidely,fortheculturetowhich
itbelongs.Withthisinmind,inChapterTwoIwillfocusontheEstoriadeEspannaand
itsdigitaledition,since,asIwillexplainbelow,theCPSFisoftenthoughtofaspartof
theEstoriadeEspanna.IwillaimtoshowwhytheEstoriaanditsderivatives,including
theCPSF,areofsufficienthistorical,culturalandlinguisticsignificancetowarranta
digitaledition,andtoproposesomeoftheresearchpossibilitiessuchaneditioncould
potentiallyprovidetoscholarsoftheperiodandoftheworks.TodothisIwillsituate
the Estoriawithin the historical and sociolinguistic contexts in which it was first
produced,includingwithinthewiderAlfonsineoeuvre.Iwillconcludethatthetextsof
the Alfonsine cultural project, and by extension, also those of the post-Alfonsine4
4LeonardoFunesdatesthepost-Alfonsineperiodas1284-1325.‘Historiografíanobiliariadelperíodopost-alfonsí:unfenómenohistórico-literarioendiscusión’inLeonardoFunes(coord.),Hispanismosdelmundo–diálogosydebatesen(ydesde)elSur,Anexodigital,secciónI,(BuenosAires:MinoyDávila,2016)https://tinyurl.com/y9rwrns5,[accessed22/03/2018]77-86,86
6
oeuvre,areofparticularhistorical,culturaland linguisticsignificancetoscholarsof
severalresearchareas,andthatbecauseofthenatureofmedievalhistoriographyin
theway theywerewritten, andoftenrewritten, according toexternal contexts, are
worthyforthecreationofdigitaleditions,usingtechniquesandmethodologiesmade
availablebymoderndigitalediting.
TheconclusionsfromChapterTwowillleadmeintomythirdchapter,whichwillbea
casestudyoftheCPSF.InthischapterIwillpresentseveralversionsofaneditionof
theCPSF,basedonsomeoftheeditorialtheorythatappearedinChapterOne,aswell
asversionsoftheeditionwhichdonotappearthere,andwiththehistorical,cultural
and linguistic context of the work, rooted in Chapter Two. The presentation and
explanation of the different versions of the edition will allowme to analyse their
potentialusageandusefulnessbystudents,scholarsandinterestedgeneralreaders,
andwillenablemetoshowtheadvantagesandconstraintsofbothdigitalandprint
editions.
7
CHAPTERONEEDITING:ANINTRODUCTION
1.0.1 Chapterintroduction
InordertoprovideafoundationonwhichtoplacemydigitaleditionoftheCPSF,this
chapterwillintroducesomeofthekeyconsiderationswheneditingtexts.Iwillbegin
byoutliningthemainschoolsofeditingstartingwiththeeditorsKarlLachmannand
JosephBédierrespectively(andnotearliereditors, forreasonswhichIwillexplain
below).Iwillthenmoveontothecaseofdigitalediting,andwillexploresomeofthe
problemsofprinteditionsthatdigitaleditionscansolve,aswellastheissuesadigital
editioncan introduce,withwhichprinteditionsdonothavetocontend. Iwill then
focus on crowdsourcing as a methodology of generating transcriptions, and will
analyse its usage and usefulness for transcription projects and the preparation of
digital editions, including for reasons of impact of the edition on its readership.
Followingthis,Iwilllookateditingmedievaltexts,withpayingparticularattentionto
thosewithinaCastilian-languagecontext,toidentifykeyfeaturesoftheseeditions,as
thesewillshapetheusers’expectationsofmyedition.Finally,Iwilldiscussmatters
relatedtoediting(andspecificallydigitallyediting)medieval texts,andwillusethe
OnlineFroissart1asacasestudy.
1AinsworthandCroenen(eds.)TheOnlineFroissart,v.1.5[accessed31/05/2017]
8
1.0.2Definitionsofkeyterms
Throughoutthischapterandtherestofthethesis,Iwillrefertothreekeytermswithin
textual scholarship:document, text andwork.These terms causemore debate than
academicnaivetymayatfirstleadonetoimagine,andthereisneitherthetimenorthe
spacetofullyexploretheissuesraisedbytheirvariousdefinitions.2Thesetermsare
discussedinmoredepthinsection1.2.5ofthischapter,sohereIwillbebrief.This
thesiswillfollowBárbaraBordalejoforadefinitionofdocument:thephysicalsupport
(manuscriptfolio,paper,scrolletc.)onwhichmarkshavebeenintentionallyinscribed
with the aim of communicating – in most cases this means there is writing
(handwritten or print) on the document; and also for text: the totality of all the
meaningfulandintentionalmarksmadeonthedocument(i.e.script,punctuationand
emendationmarks, but not accidental ink splatters, dust or stains) designed to be
understoodbythereadingagent(whetherthisagentbehuman–areader,ormachine
–acomputer),whenmeaningisextractedfromthesemarksbythereadingagent.3For
workIwillfollowPeterRobinson:‘theworkisthesetoftextswhichishypothesized
asorganicallyrelated,intermsofthecommunicativeactswhichtheypresent’.4
2TheseissuesareraisedbyPeterShillingsburgin‘Manuscript,bookandtextinthetwenty-firstcentury’inFromGutenbergtoGoogle–ElectronicRepresentationsofLiteraryTexts(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,2006)pp.11-index243BárbaraBordalejo,‘TheTextsWeSeeandtheWorksWeImagine:TheShiftofFocusofTextualScholarshipintheDigitalAge,Ecdotica,10,(2013)64-76,65-684PeterRobinson,‘TheDigitalRevolutioninScholarlyEditing’,B.Crostini,G.IversenandB.M.Jensen,(eds.),ArsEdendiLectureSeries,vol.IV(Stockholm:StockholmUniversityPress,2016)pp.181-207,p.197
9
1.1Backgroundtoscholarlyediting
In1992,DavidGreetham,aleadingfigureintextualscholarshipinthelatetwentieth
andtheearlytwenty-firstcenturies,andoneofthefoundersoftheSocietyforTextual
Scholarship(STS),explainedthatthehistoryoftextualscholarshipintheWestcanbe
tracedbacktotheGreekearlytextualcritics,whobytheendofthesixthcenturyBCE
had established a version of the Homeric epics. 5 His Textual Scholarship – An
Introductionremainsoneofthekeytextsofrequiredreadingforanystudentoftextual
scholarshipandfledglingeditor,andhisclearandconcisehistorydevotessomethirty
pagestothehistoryoftextualscholarshipfromitsclassicalbeginningstothetwentieth
century. For these reasons it is not necessary to repeat the information included
thereininthepresentwork.Furthermore,beyondgivingacontextualgroundingtothe
theoryandpracticeof current textual scholarship,detailing itshistoryprior to the
work of Karl Lachmann (1793-1851) is not required to fulfil the objective of the
currentchapter,sowecanstartourbriefdescriptionof thebackgroundofmodern
textualeditingthere.
1.1.1TheLachmannianapproach
TheLachmannianmethodoftextualcriticism,orthestemmaticapproach,isattributed
totheGermantextualscholar,philologistandclassicistKarlLachmann.6AsBordalejo
5Greetham,TextualScholarship–AnIntroduction,p.2976DavidParkermakesaninterestingasideaboutthebiblicalnatureoftheloadedterminologyusedintheLachmannianbranchoftextualcriticism,likeningittothelanguageoffallandredemption,inD.C.
10
pointsout,hewasnotthefirsttousestemmatawhenediting,buthisimpactwassuch
thattheapproachwaslaterknownbyhisname.7TheLachmannianmethod’sobjective
istorecoverthelostarchetypeofthetext(butnottheoriginalitself,whichisgenerally
impossible), by removing ‘corruptions’ from the original.8Where there is authorial
material, this would be hierarchised over later material. The matter would be
significantlymorecomplicatedininstanceswherethereismorethanoneversionof
thetext,withauthorialemendations.Insuchcasesitislikelythattheearliestauthorial
versionwouldbehierarchised,sincetheLachmannianmethodviewsemendationsto
becorruptionsfromthis.Themethodlinkstotheaforementionedconceptofworkby
Bordalejo, following G. Thomas Tanselle, where an authorially-intended text, or as
closeaspossible to this, isprivilegedaboveanyotherversions.9Lachmannisoften
linkedtothepracticeofthecreationofthestemmaofextantandinferredwitnesses,
althoughGreethampointsoutthatLachmannhimselfneveractuallycreatedastemma
(laterscholarsfollowinghismethodtraditionallyhavedone),butratherLachmann’s
contribution to scholarship was the ‘theoretical separation of the two stages of
approaching the text’: (i) recensio – the charting of variants (and the separationof
these into ‘true’ readings and ‘errors’), and (ii) emendatio and divinatio – the
rectification of errors – with the eventual aim of reconstructing the text’s lost
archetype,10whichcansometimesbetotallyconjectural.Thisapproachtraditionally
Parker,‘ThroughaScreenDarkly:DigitalTextsandtheNewTestament’,JournalfortheStudyoftheNewTestament,25.4(2003)401.7BárbaraBordalejo,‘ThePhylogenyoftheTale-OrderintheCanterburyTales’(PhDthesis,NewYorkUniversity,2003)p.39-40<www.bordalejo.net/NYU/Chapter2.pdf>[accessed13/01/2016]8JeromeMcGann,ACritiqueofModernTextualCriticism(newedition)(CharlottesvilleandLondon:UniversityPressofVirginia,1983,1992)p.159ThereaderisrespectfullyinformedthatthisnotionisnottheoneaccordingtowhichthiseditionoftheCrónicaParticulardeSanFernandoisproduced.10Greetham,TextualScholarship–AnIntroduction,p.323
11
seesanyvariationbetweenwitnessesasevidenceof‘corruption’fromwhat,according
tothemethod,isconsideredtothemostauthoritativetext–thatis,theoriginal,and
usescommonerrorstogroupwitnessesintofamilies.DavidHultstatesthatLachmann
hasbecome‘therepresentativeofGermanidealisminscholarship’anddescribeshis
approach as ‘mechanistic’ and ‘scientifistic’. 11 Tanselle has explained that this
approachwasanintentionalmoveawayfromtheworkofmanyeighteenth-century
textualeditorswhohadeditedtextstosuittheirownpersonaltastes.12
TheLachmannianmethod,whichremainspopularinGermanyandItaly,traditionally
favours an approachwhere allwitnesses caneventually be traced back to a single
archetype,andwhichhaveafirstsplitfromthearchetypeintotwo.13Thismeansthat
manyLachmannianstemmatahaveatwo-branchpattern.TextualcriticJosephBédier
(1864-1938)believedthis tobe fraudulent,asitunfairlypromotedthosewitnesses
whichderivedfromonecopiedexemplar,andfailedtodealadequatelywithmultiple
witnessescopiedfromthesameexemplar,andthosewhichhadbeencopiedfromone
exemplarwhilstthescriberememberedanothervariantexemplar.Suchcaseswould
produce three- and four-branch stemmata but would force followers of the
Lachmannianapproachtoreconsiderthesuretywithwhichtheystatedanyvariants
wereerrors,andthenatureof‘good’and‘bad’manuscripts.14Bédier,aformerfollower
of the Lachmannian method, split from the approach in what Paolo Trovato has
11DavidHult,‘ReadingitRight:TheIdeologyofTextEditing’inMarinaBrownlee,KevinBrownleeandStephenNichols(eds.)TheNewMedievalism(BaltimoreandLondon:JohnsHopkinsUniversityPress,1991)pp.111-130,p.11812G.ThomasTanselle,‘EditingWithoutaCopy-Text’,StudiesinBibliography,47(1994)1-22,113Bordalejo,‘ThePhylogenyoftheTale-Order’,pp.43-4514Greetham,TextualScholarship–AnIntroduction,pp.323-325
12
describedasa‘schism’,15andproposedanewapproachtotextualcriticism,becoming
what Bordalejo has called ‘probably the most famous detractor of the Lachmann
method’.16
1.1.2TheBédieristapproach
Bédier’s approach to editing was that the editor should choose the best available
witnessonthegroundsonlinguistic,historical,codicologicalorotherevidence,17and
shouldemendonlywherestrictlynecessary.18Thisapproach,whichbecamethemost
popularapproachinFranceandSpain,hascometobeknownasbest-textediting.19
Themethodrequirestheeditortofirstestablishtherelationshipbetweenwitnesses
in order to identify the ‘best’ text,20 that is often to say the earliest or the best-
preservedmanuscript, and then to faithfully follow the readings of that particular
witness.21Choosingwhichmanuscriptis ‘best’ishighlysubjective;22AlbertoBlecua
tellsusthatinthecaseofeditionsofmedievalvulgartextsinparticular,thechoiceof
15PaoloTrovato,EverythingYouAlwaysWantedtoKnowaboutLachmann’sMethod.ANon-StandardHandbookofGenealogicalTextualCriticismintheAgeofPost-Structuralism,Cladistics,andCopy-Text(Padova:libreriauniversitaria.it,2014)p.7716Bordalejo,‘ThePhylogenyoftheTale-Order’,p.4317Greetham,TextualScholarship–AnIntroduction,p.32518OddEinarHaugen,‘ThespiritofLachmann,thespiritofBédier:OldNorsetextualeditingintheelectronicage’,AnnualmeetingofTheVikingSociety(London:UniversityCollegeLondon,8November2002)<http://www.ub.uib.no/elpub/2003/a/522001/haugen.pdf>[accessed25/01/2016]p.919Bordalejo,‘ThePhylogenyoftheTale-Order’,pp.44-4520Bordalejo,‘ThePhylogenyoftheTale-Order’,pp.44-4521DavidGreetham,‘TextualScholarship’,JosephGibaldi(ed.)IntroductiontoScholarshipinModernLanguagesandLiteratures,SecondEdition(NewYork:TheModernLanguageAssociationofAmerica,1992)pp.103-137,p.10622OddEinarHaugen,mostrecentlymodifiedbyPhilippRoelli,‘Edition,best-manuscript’,Confluence,lastedited07/11/2015,https://wiki.hiit.fi/display/stemmatology/Edition%2C+best-manuscript[accessed03/10/2017]
13
a best text ‘con frecuencia coincide con el antiquior’. 23 Miguel Ángel Pérez Priego
explains,however, thataneditorcannotsimplyrelyonexternalcharacteristicsofa
manuscripttodecidethatitisthebest,asthesecouldmerelybedowntotheworkof
expert copyists or a demanding patron,24nor should one look solely to the oldest
witness, since even this may be several copies away from the original, each with
accumulating ‘errors’, to use his term. 25 Greetham points out a ‘perverse logic’
underpinningBédier’sapproach,sincethemethodrequiresaneditortofirstchoose
thebesttext,forwhichtheymustbeabletojudgeauthorialintention,butoncethebest
text ischosentonotemend itany furtherthan isstrictlynecessary,as theauthor’s
intentionsare‘otherwiseunknowable’.26
AengusWardhasdescribedtheapproachestoscholarlyeditingrespectivelyattributed
toLachmannandBédieras‘extremepoles’,27andHultlabelsthem‘symbolicsignposts
alongthepathtreadbytexteditors’,representingincaricaturethedifferencebetween
GermanidealismandFrenchmaterialism,28anditistruethatallothermoderntextual
editors fall some way between these two positions in the continuum of the
methodology of editing. Hult succinctly summarises the respective criticisms of
followersof these twoeditingpoles, explaining that followersofLachmannbelieve
Bédiertobea‘blindadvocateforscholarlylazinessoruncriticalmethodology’,whilst
Bédier’sfollowersseeLachmann’smethodasbeinggovernedby‘adeceptivemeasure
23AlbertoBlecua,Manualdecríticatextual,(Madrid:EditorialCastalia,1983,2001),p.4324MiguelÁngelPérezPriego,Introduccióngeneralalaedicióndeltextoliteratio,(Madrid:UniversidadNacionaldeEducaciónaDistancia,2001)p.7025PérezPriego,p.6926Greetham,TextualScholarship–AnIntroduction,p.32527AengusWard,‘EditingtheEstoriadeEspanna’,Ecdotica,11,(2014)185-204,19128Hult,p.118
14
ofsubjectivity’whichseestheauthoras the ‘unabashedhero’andthescribeas the
corrupting‘villain’.29
1.1.3TheAnglo-Americanschoolofediting
In 1950, W. W. Greg published his seminal essay The Rationale of Copy-Text. 30
GreethamhasdescribedthisasGreg’s‘singlemostinfluentialcontributiontotextual
scholarship’. 31 The essay discredits Lachmann’s approach as, according to Greg,
althoughitwas‘thegreatestadvanceevermadeinthisfield’,itcould‘reducetextual
criticism to a code ofmechanical rules’.32He also argues against best-text editing,
describingthetheorybehinditasa‘fallacy’whichis‘nowgenerallyrejected’,asitdoes
notallowforeditorialjudgementindecidingbetweenvariantsfromwitnessesother
thanthebesttext,incontextwhere,followingGreg’sapproach,thismaybeconsidered
necessary.33Greg,aneditorofprintededitions,andShakespearescholar,advocated
thechoiceofacopy-texttobeusedwhenediting,andstatesthatthisshouldbethe
extanttextwhich‘maybesupposedtorepresentmostnearlywhattheauthorwrote’.34
InGreg’sview,whereverpossiblethisshouldbetheearliesttextavailable,suchasthe
author’smanuscriptorafirstedition,as(again,inhisview,andsincequeriedbyPérez
29Hult,p.11930W.W.Greg,‘TheRationaleofCopy-Text’,StudiesinBibliography,Vol.3,(1950-1951)pp.19-3631Greetham,TextualScholarship–AnIntroduction,p.33332Greg,1933Greg,2434Greg,21;Greg’sexperienceandfieldofeditingmustbeborneinmindwhenanalyzinghisarguments:therearemultiplefundamentaldifferencesbetweenGreg’sareaofexpertiseandtheeditingofmedievaltexts.
15
Priego)35thiswouldbemostlikelytobetheclosesttotheauthor’sfinalmanuscript.36
Gregthenstatesthattheeditorshouldemendthetextchosento‘altermisleadingor
eccentricspellingswhichheissatisfiedemanatefromthescribeorcompositorandnot
from the author’, 37 leading to the creation of the copy-text. In this way, Greg’s
approach,whichhasbeencometobeknownastheAnglo-Americanapproach,differs
from both that of Lachmann and of Bédier: a Lachmannian approach advocates
attemptingtoreconstructalostarchetypeusingasscientificanapproachaspossible
toselecthistoricalvariantsforthereconstructedtext,whereasGreg’smethod,whilst
also ‘pursuingauthorial intention’,38allowsforeditorialemendationstobemadeto
thecopy-text.ABédieristapproach,contrastingly,discouragesanyemendationofthe
chosenwitness at all, other thanwhere it is absolutely unavoidable. Key toGreg’s
treatmentofvariantsisthewayinwhichhedividedthemintotwogroups:significant,
or ‘substantive’ variants, which he explains to be those which ‘affect the author’s
meaningortheessenceofhisexpression’,and‘accidental’variants,bywhichhemeans
‘spelling,punctuation[and]word-division’.Hearguesthatthedistinctionisrelevant
asscribesandcopyistsarelikelytoaimtoreproducetheauthor’ssubstantivereadings
buttheymayintroduceaccidentalvariantsifthey,forexample,modernisespellingto
thatoftheirowntime.39Gregendshisessaywiththefollowingphrase:‘Mydesireis
rathertoprovokediscussionthantolaydownthelaw’,40showingadegreeofscholarly
modestynotsharedbyalltextualscholars.
35PérezPriego,Introduccióngeneral,p.7036Greg,2937Greg,3038Bordalejo,‘ThePhylogenyoftheTale-Order’,p.4639Greg,21-2240Greg,36
16
Greg’sworkwasbuiltonbyFredsonBowers,‘themostprolificandinfluentialeditor
of this [meaning the twentieth] century in the English-speaking scholarlyworld’.41
Bowerswasmorehard-linedinhisapproachthanGreghadbeen:inhis1964essay
Some Principles for Scholarly Editions by Nineteenth-Century American Authors he
claimsthatGreg’stheory‘rulessupreme’.42Theessayhassomestrongclaimsonthe
methodology of editing: referring to spelling, punctuation, capitalisation, word-
division and paragraphing in the case of nineteenth-century American writings,
Bowersstates‘onemayflatlyassertthatanytextthatismodernizedcanneverpretend
tobescholarly,nomatteratwhataudienceitisaimed’.43Hegoesontodismissentirely
themeritsofaBédieristbest-textedition,evenattackingthelevelofscholarlinessand
workthathasgoneintosuchworks,statingthat ‘anargumentcannotreallyexistin
favourofamerereprint[ofasingledocument],nomatterhowneatlysuchaprocedure
enablesaneditortododgehisbasicresponsibility’.44Thefactthatatsixpageslongthe
essayisontheshortsideintermsofacademicconvention,Bowerswastesnotimein
makinghisargumentsclear:bothoftheabovestatementsarefromthefirstparagraph
andahalf.BowerssupportsGreg’sbelief thatwhereverpossible thetextchosento
become the copy-text should be the earliest extant witness, stating that the most
authoritative version of the text is one dating towithin the author’s lifetime or to
‘withinasufficienttimeafterhisdeath’forcorrectionstocomeasdirectlyaspossible
from the author, 45 and his beliefs about the responsibilities of the editor are
41Tanselle,‘EditingWithoutaCopy-Text’,1142FredsonBowers,‘SomePrinciplesforScholarlyEditionsbyNineteenth-CenturyAmericanAuthors’,StudiesinBibliography,17(1964)223-228,22443Bowers,22344Bowers,223,emphasismine.45Bowers,23
17
unambiguous:hestatesitistheeditor’stasktousethe‘evidenceavailable’toremove
variantsintroducedintothetextbyprintersandcopyists,whoindoingsohaveshown
disrespectforthetext.46ItisworthhighlightingherethatBowerswasaneditorof,and
isbasinghisargumentsontextsfromtheeraofprint,notfromthepre-printera,which
aswewillseelaterinthischapter,havetheirownspecificitieswithwhichaneditor
mustcontend.
Greethamexplainsthatthecopy-textapproachbasedontheworkofGregandBowers
became, formuchof thetwentiethcentury, the ‘dominantmodeofAnglo-American
textualscholarship’,totheextentthatGreg’sprincipalsbecamethe‘hegemony’ofthe
field.47 Richard Bucci has written of a ‘long period’ during which Anglo-American
textual scholars were engaged with the Greg-Bowers school of textual criticism,
althoughthatisnottosaythatitwasuniversallysupported,asactiveresistancetothe
school isalsoengagementwith it.48BuccigoesontodescribeTanselleas the ‘most
insightfulandfar-seeingparticipantofthiscollectiveengagement’.49Thisistruetothe
extentthathisnameisnowoftenaddedtothatoftheapproachitself,whichmanynow
refer to as theGreg-Bowers-Tanselle approach.Whilst itwould be oversimplifying
matters to suggest that there was no resistance to this approach within the
Anglophoneeditingcommunity,50asBordalejonotes, ‘the influenceofGreg,Bowers
46Bowers,225-22647Greetham,TextualScholarship–AnIntroduction,pp.334-33548RichardBucci,‘Tanselle’s“EditingWithoutaCopy-Text”:Genesis,Issues,Prospects’,StudiesinBibliography,56(2003-3004),1-44,249Bucci,250Greetham,TextualScholarship–AnIntroduction,explicitlymentionstwocriticsofthemethod:EdmundWilsonandJamesThorpe,(pp.334-336)andgoesontodescribehowHershelParkerarguesthattheGreg-BowersapproachisunsatisfactoryformanyworksofAmericanfictionwhereauthorialintentionwasnotfixed,butrathertherewere‘variouslevelsofintention’(p.344).PeterShillingsburgexplainsthatThorpearguesthat“worksof“literaryart”didnot“becomeworks”untiltheywere
18
and Tanselle on Anglo-American editing was so widespread during the twentieth
centurythatotherkindsofeditionhavebeensomewhatovershadowed’.51
Tanselle has defended Bowers’ arguments against modernising texts, describing
modernisingeditorsas‘condescendingandofficious’,andarguesthatthepracticeof
modernising(which,hestates, isoftenonlycarriedoutpartially)can leavethetext
‘confusedandunhistorical’.52Referringtomodernisingeditorsofhistorical textshe
asks, ‘What, in the end,do theyaccomplish,other thandepriving the readerof the
experienceofreadingtheoriginaltext?’53Tanselledoesnot,however,blindlyadvocate
every aspect of theGreg-Bowers approach. For example, Greethampointsout that
Tanselle has distanced himself from Greg’s distinction between ‘substantive’ and
‘accidental’ variants, believing the terms to be misleading.54Tanselle’s 1994 essay
EditingWithout a Copy-Text55was described in 2003 by Bucci as ‘one of themost
importantwritingsoneditingtoappearinrecenttimes’.56InthisessayTanselleargues
thateditorsshouldbuildonGreg’swork,whichhadbeenextendedbyBowers,butfor
editorstomovebeyondtherestrictionsorweaknessesintheapproachthathadcome
tolightinthehalfcenturysincethepublicationofGreg’sessay,duringwhichtimeboth
published”(FromGutenbergtoGoogle,p.186),andPaulEggertexplainsthismorefullybysayingthatintheviewofThorpeandalsoofPhilipGaskell,theauthorisawareofthefactthattheproductionofaliteraryworkiscollaborativebetweentheauthor,copy-editor,type-setterandpublishinghouse,andthereforethecopy-textshouldbeanearlypublishedformratherthananauthorialpre-publicationmanuscript(SecuringthePast.ConservationinArt,ArchitectureandLiterature(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,2009)pp.172-174)51Bordalejo,‘ThePhylogenyoftheTale-Order’,p.4752G.ThomasTanselle,‘TheEditingofHistoricalDocuments’,StudiesinBibliography,31(1978)1-56,4953Tanselle,‘TheEditingofHistoricalDocuments’,4954Greetham,TextualScholarship–AnIntroduction,p.33555Tanselle,‘EditingwithoutaCopy-Text'56Bucci,2
19
Bowers and Tanselle had been key figures in the field. He argues that in cases of
radiatingtexts, touseBowers’ term,whichTanselledescribesasbeing ‘equidistant
from their common ancestor’, choosing one of these texts to serve as copy-text is
tantamountto‘elevatingitundeservedlytouniquehistoricalstatus’,57andisevidence
of theeditorbeing ‘tyrannised’bytheideaofhavingacopy-text,referencingGreg’s
statement that editors should avoid the tyranny of the copy-text. 58 Instead of
emending an existing text, Tanselle argues, an editor should build up a text from
variants in the witnesses, making the process of editing constructive rather than
emendatory.59This,hecontends,ensuresthatdecisionsaremadethrough‘reasoned
action’ rather thanby simply followinga rule, and that editingwithouta copy-text
allowsformoreeditorialjudgement.60AtheartafolloweroftheGreg-Bowersmethod,
TansellestatesthatratherthanarguingagainstGreg,heisbuildingonandcompleting
hisoriginaltheoryofediting61whichadvocatesgreatereditorialfreedom.62
1.1.4Socialtextualcriticism
In1980,JeromeMcGannpublishedthefirstofsevenvolumesofhiseditionentitled
Byron:TheCollectedPoeticalWorks.63In thiseditionhe famouslypursuedauthorial
57Tanselle,‘EditingwithoutaCopy-Text',1858Tanselle,‘EditingwithoutaCopy-Text',1059Tanselle,‘EditingwithoutaCopy-Text',1960Tanselle,‘EditingwithoutaCopy-Text',1961Tanselle,‘EditingwithoutaCopy-Text',362Tanselle,‘EditingwithoutaCopy-Text',863JeromeMcGann,‘Publications’,JeromeMcGann:Vita(2004)<http://www2.iath.virginia.edu/jjm2f/vita.html>[accessed5/2/2016]
20
intention by following the traditional Anglo-American eclectic method.64 After the
publicationofthisedition,however,McGannreconsideredhisviewsonhowediting
shouldbedone.65BythelaunchofhisonlineeditionoftheRossettiArchiveintheyear
2000,McGann’sstylewasarejectionof theAnglo-American intentionalistschoolof
editing.66Inthemeantimehehadbecomealeadingfigureintextualcriticismand‘one
of the most influential of current American editors’, 67 prolifically publishing
theoreticalmaterialarguingagainstthetraditionalcopy-textmethodmadefamousby
Greg,BowersandTanselle,andasaresulthe‘upsetthescholarlyapplecart’withinthe
field.68McGann’seditorialprinciplesinhislatereditionsarebasedonhistheorythat
all public versions of a text have both linguistic (content) and bibliographical
(physical)codes.McGannarguesthattheauthorgivesthetext itsoriginal linguistic
code, and this can be changed by ‘other authorities’.69The newwitnesses that are
createdwhentheseotherauthoritiesmakechangestotheoriginaltextareconsidered
validversionsofthetextastheyformpartofthetext’shistory,70andcanpotentially
be of equal textual significance as the author’s original version.71 McGann, whose
argumentisprincipallyconcernedwithpost-seventeenth-centurytexts,andtherefore
forthemostpartprintedtexts,72assertsthatliterarytextsandtheirmeaningsare,by
their very nature, ‘collaborative events’, 73 and that the author possesses sole
64Shillingsburg,p.18565Shillingsburg,p.18566Shillingsburg,p.18567Shillingsburg,p.2668Shillingsburg,p.869JeromeMcGann,‘WhatisCriticalEditing?’Text,5(1991),15-29,2170Greetham,TextualScholarship–AnIntroduction,p.33771Greetham,TextualScholarship–AnIntroduction,p.11172JeromeMcGann,ACritiqueofModernTextualCriticism(Chicago:ChicagoUniversityPress,1983)p.2873McGann,‘WhatisCriticalEditing?’23
21
autonomyoverhiswork‘onlywhenitremainsanunheardmelody’,74showingthathe
nowrejects the intentionalist viewof editing texts. It is this conceptof texts being
altered and therefore having theirmeaning changed by authorities other than the
author,whatMcGanncallsa‘socializedconceptofauthorshipandtextualauthority’,75
which gives rise to the name ‘social textual criticism’,76a theory ‘most vigorously
proposed’ by D. F. McKenzie. In a 1985 lecture, McKenzie argued that reading
bibliographical signs can have a significant impact on one’s understanding of the
meaningofatext.77McGannhasstatedthatheseeshiswork‘asacriticalpursuitof
McKenzie’s ideas’,78althoughhe doesnot followMcKenzie in the traditional sense,
sincebothwereworkingindependentlyandatthesametime.McGann’s1983bookA
CritiqueofModernTextualCriticismisforthemostpartanattackontheauthorial-final-
intentionalist school within textual criticism, and focuses on picking apart the
approachtakenbyBowers.AccordingtoMcGann’sargumentofsocialtextualcriticism,
traditionalcopy-textediting,andinparticulartheapproachchampionedbyBowers,
placesundueweightontheimportanceoftheauthorasthesoleauthoritybehindthe
textwhenchoosingawitnesstobeusedascopy-text;McGanncontendsthatauthorial
intentionshouldbeonlyonecriterionamongstothers.79Hearguesthatliteraryworks
have‘amodeofexistencewhichisfundamentallysocialratherthanpersonal,’80and
thatinworkssincetheageofprinting,whentheauthorhasworkedwiththeeditor
74McGann,ACritiqueofModernTextualCriticism(1983),p.5175McGann,ACritiqueofModernTextualCriticism(1983)p.876Greetham,TextualScholarship–AnIntroduction,p.11177D.F.McKenzie,BibliographyandtheSociologyofTexts,ElectronicEdition(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,1999)<http://site.ebrary.com/lib/bham/detail.action?docID=10015014>[accessed6/2/2016],pp.18-1978JeromeMcGann,‘FromTexttoWork:DigitalToolsandtheEmergenceoftheSocialText’,Variants,4(2005)225-240,22679McGann,‘WhatisCriticalEditing?’,2480McGann,ACritiqueofModernTextualCriticism(1983),p.8
22
andprinter,thefirsteditionpublished,ratherthantheauthor’sfinalprepublication
manuscript,isusuallytheonewhichhewantedtohavepresentedtothepublic,whilst
the final-authorial-intentionalist approach calls for a rejection of any ‘corruptions’
madeafterthefinalmanuscriptstage.81Furthermore,McGannarguesthatwhereno
authorialtextisextant,itisnotpossibleforanyonehypothesisedtexttobe‘correct’,82
since all public appearances of the text can potentially have equal significance. 83
‘Meaning’,McGannargues,‘istransmittedthroughbibliographicalaswellaslinguistic
codes’, sowhenmaking an edition, placing undue privilege on the linguistic codes
giventoatextbyitsauthor,rejectingchangesmadebyotherauthorities,andexcluding
theimpactofatext’sbibliographicalcodesdoesnotallowustofullyappreciatethe
meaning of the text. 84 Peter Shillingsburg gives a clear example of the effect of
bibliographicalcodesonourunderstandingofmeaningwhenthelinguisticcodehas
notnecessarilychanged:
Ifyouvisitawealthyfriend’shomeandfindonthecoffeetablealuxuriouslyprinted,gilt-edged,redleatherbookwithsilkribbonplacemarkersandpickituptoreadinittheCommunistManifesto(Ihavenotmadethisup)–onecanhardlyreadsuchabook,insuchaplace,inthesamewaythatonecouldhavereaditsfirsteditionhotoffthepress.85
Someelementsofthistheorycanbeofparticularusefulnessforeditorsofmedieval
texts,sinceitreflectsthewaythattextsfromthisperiodwereoftencollaborativein
nature,andourmodernnotionofauthorshiphadyettocomeintoexistence.McGann’s
notionthatthewitnessescreatedwhenchangesaremadetotextscanbecomevalid
81McGann,ACritiqueofModernTextualCriticism(1983),pp.41-4282McGann,‘WhatisCriticalEditing?’,2483Greetham,TextualScholarship–AnIntroduction,p.11184McGann,‘WhatisCriticalEditing?’,2185Shillingsburg,p.16
23
versionsofthattextcanbeappliedtomedievaltextualstudies,sinceourintentionas
editorsofmedievaltextsisnotalwaystoreconstructalostarchetypeandtoridthe
textofany‘corruptions’madetoitbyvillainousscribesororderedbypatronslater
thanthetext’soriginalpatron.Someeditorsdostillholdthisas theiryardstick, for
instance,aswewillseelater,theeditionsproducedbySECRIT(SeminariodeEdición
yCríticaTextual)aregenerallyLachmannianinnature,andperhapsthemostfamous
editionofamedievalIberianprosework,RamónMenéndezPidal’sPrimeraCrónica
Generalprivilegesthemanuscripthebelievedtobethatoftheauthor.86Ontheother
hand,someeditorsofmedievaltextseditinadifferentway:onhisdigitaleditionofthe
EstoriadeEspanna,AengusWardarguesthathisobjectiveis‘nottofixtheEstoria,but
rather to allow it breathe in its textual diversity’.87Here,Ward is recognising that
changesweremadetotheEstoriaasitwastransmittedfromwitnesstowitness,and
thatthesechangesareequallyinterestingtoscholarssincetheyarepartofthetext’s
history, and can shed light on the changing socio-political contexts in which the
witnesses were copied, and in doing so is placing himself closer to McGann and
McKenzie.
86MarianodelaCampa,‘LaVersiónprimitivadelaEstoriadeEspannadeAlfonsoX:Edicióncrítica’AIH,ActasdelXIIICongresodelaAsociaciónInternacionaldeHispanistas(Madrid,6-11July1998),Vol.1(2000)59-72,6087TheEstoriadeEspannaDigitalproject,‘Methodology’
24
1.1.5Gabler’s‘Ulysses’
Adescriptionofthebackgroundofscholarlyediting,evenabriefoneasthisis,would
be incomplete without touching onwhat is probably the most controversial of all
editionsinlivingmemory:HansWalterGabler’s1984editionofJamesJoyce’sUlysses,
atextwhichhadbeen‘problematic’sinceitspublicationin1922,givenitsstatusasa
major twentieth-century novelwith an estimated four thousand errors.88A former
studentofFredsonBowers,bythetimeofpublicationofhisfamouseditionofUlysses,
GablerwasaprofessorofEnglishattheUniversityofMunich.89Hiseditionwasseven
yearsinthemaking,throughoutwhichtimeitwaswidelypublicized,andevenlauded
before its publication. 90 Rather than an edition based on a traditional copy-text
method,Gablerusedahugecollectionof‘worksheets,drafts,typescriptsandproofs’in
thehopeofreconstructingthetext,ashebelievedtheauthorhadwrittenit.91Indoing
so,hemadesomefivethousandemendations.92Greethamhasdescribedhismethod
as an ‘attempted marriage of a Continental, non-authorial method and an Anglo-
American,author-centred,presentation’.93Theeditioncomprisedasynopticedition
ontheleft-handpagesandageneral-reader’stextontheright.94
88Greetham,TextualScholarship–AnIntroduction,pp.127-12889Greetham,TextualScholarship–AnIntroduction,p.12890CharlesRossman,“TheCriticalReceptionofthe“Gabler“Ulysses”:OrGabler’s“Ulysses”Kidd-napped”,StudiesintheNovel,21.2(summer1989)154-181,<http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/29532634.pdf>[accessed25/01/2016]15491Rossman,15792Rossman,15593Greetham,TextualScholarship–AnIntroduction,p.35494Eggert,p.172-173
25
At first the critical reception to the editionwas overwhelmingly positive, andwas
coupledwithexcitement in themassmedia,butby1988 its reception inacademic
circleshadchangeddrastically.95The ‘principalantagonist’96who ledtheturningof
thetidewasthenpostdoctoralfellowJohnKidd,whogaveapaperovertlyattacking
Gabler’s edition and methodology to the STS in 1985. 97 Gabler’s pre-prepared
responsetothispaperhasbeendescribedratherunfavourablybyCharlesRossman,
anotherofGabler’scritics,whostatesthatGabler’sresponsewascondescendingand
suggested professional jealousy on Kidd’s part. 98 Greetham has explained the
contentionmoreneutrallyasevidenceofGabler’spartialfailuretoattempttomarry
theContinentaltheorywithAnglo-Americantheory,orasapartialmisunderstanding
ofthemethodologybyhisdetractors.This,Greethamgoesontosay,hadexacerbated
otherissuesintheedition,whichGreethamlistsas‘itsfailuretoconsultoriginalsof
primarydocuments,itsambivalentemendationspolicy,andtheproblematicstatusof
someofthereadingsrecordedonlyinhistoricalcollation’.99Bythe1995STSplenary
tothedebate,accordingtoPaulEggert,Gablerwasdeclaredtobethevictorbymany
ofthosepresent,althoughsomeoftheissuesraisedbyhisdetractorshadbeenproved
validandinneedofbeingfixed.100Eggertgoesontopoignantlynotethat‘noscholarly
edition is error-free’, and that editorswhowere present at the plenary would be
excusedforshudderingat‘theprospectoftheireditionsbeingsubjectedtothesame
95Rossman,15596Eggert,p.17497Rossman,15598Rossman,16599Greetham,TextualScholarship–AnIntroduction,p.354100Eggert,p.176;Eggertpointsoutthathewaspresentatthe1995STSplenarydebateinquestion.
26
levelofscrutinythatGabler’shad’.101Suchafeelingisnotrestrictedtojusttheeditors
presentatthe1995plenary.
ThesignificanceoftheGablercontroversyforthepresentthesisisthatitshowsthat
theusersofaneditionbringwiththemcertainexpectations,basedontheirexperience
ofeditionswithintheeditorialschooltowhichtheyaremostaccustomed.Wherethese
expectationsarenotmet, themethodologyof theedition isperceivedtobeat fault,
rather thanprompting readers toreassess theirpreconceptions.The implicationof
thisforeditorsisthatthesepreconceptionsshouldbeconsideredwhenpreparingan
edition,inorderfortheeditioncreatedtobeperceivedasusefulandthereforeused
bytheintendedaudience.Thereislittlepointinmakinganeditionthatnobodywill
use.Thisisnottosay,however,thataneditorisunabletochallengeusers’editorial
preconceptions,butthatsheshouldnotsimplyignorethem:inmanycasesitmaybe
sufficient for themajority of users for the editor to explain the editorial decisions
made.Aswewillseelater,althoughthelevelofscrutinyappliedtoGabler’seditionis
unusual, scrutiny of this type is easier, and therefore more common, with digital
editions, particularly thosewhere digital images of the documents are available to
usersoftheedition.102
***
Theaimof this chapter is toprovidea theoretical foundationonwhich tobasemy
digitalCPSF.Withthisinmind,Iwillturnnowtotheshifttowardsdigitalediting.
101Eggert,p.176102Parker,‘ThroughaScreenDarkly’,p.404
27
1.2 Theshifttowardselectronicediting
1.2.1Earlydigitaleditions
With the advent of word-processing technology and the Internet, the natural
developmentwithin the field of scholarly editingwas the production of electronic
editions,firstdistributedthroughCD-ROMs,andthenviatheInternet.Bordalejohas
listedthefirstelectroniceditionsasKevinKiernan’sBeowulf(availableattheBritish
Libraryandotherselectedsites,1994),103PeterRobinson’sTheWifeofBath’sPrologue
(CD-ROM, 1996), Ed Folsom and Kenneth Price’s The Whitman Archive (CD-ROM,
1997), Viscomi, Essick and Eaves’ The Blake Archive (online, 1997) Murray
McGillivray’sBookoftheDuchess(CD-ROM,2000)andJeromeMcGann’sTheRossetti
Archive (online, 2000).104 Many scholarly editions, including critical editions, now
appearindigitalformats;asBordalejopointsoutinthefootnotesof‘TheTextsWeSee’,
manycritical editionsdo still appear inprinted form,althoughmanyof thesehave
benefitedfromdigitaltoolsandmethods.105
103KevinKiernan,‘DigitalPreservation,RestorationandDisseminationofMedievalManuscripts’,ScholarlyPublishingontheElectronicNetworks,1993:Gateways,GatekeepersandRolesintheInformationOmniverse,(1993),<http://www.uky.edu/~kiernan/eBeo_archives/#A>[accessed13/01/2016]104Bordalejo,‘TheTextsWeSee’,64-65105Bordalejo,‘TheTextsWeSee’,65
28
1.2.2TheriseofHypertexteditions
In 1996, and using his Rossetti Archive as one of his examples, Jerome McGann
published ‘The Rationale of HyperText’, an article that Peter Robinson, a textual
scholar and leading figure in the area of transcription and collation software, has
describedasthe‘theoreticalimprimaturfromaleadingtextualcritic’thathelpedpave
thewayforthegeneralshiftfromprinttodigitaleditions.106Inhis‘Rationale’,aclear
referencetoGreg’saforementioned1950essay‘TheRationaleofCopy-Text’,McGann
writesofhow‘computerized’editionsusinghypertextcouldhelpovercomesomeof
whathecallsthe‘codex-basedlimits’ofprinteditions.107Heseparates‘computerized’
editionswithouthypertext tools (whatwewouldnowbemore likely to refer toas
‘digitised’editions)whichallowtheuservirtualaccesstohardcopydocuments,and
the use of ‘hypertext’ editions (or now ‘digital’ editions) which, he argues, use
hypertexttoolstofreetheuserfromthelimitationsofcodex-basededitions.108Years
aheadofhistime,McGannwritesthathypertexteditionsallowtheuserto‘navigate
throughlargemassesofdocuments’,to‘navigatebetweenversions’,toallowforeasier
comparisonofvariantsthanispossibleinbook-basededitions.Throughtheuseoffive
examples,hegivesseveralbenefitsofdigitaleditionsoverprinteditionssuchasthe
potential to include ‘a thicknetworkof related critical andcontextual information’,
featuressuchassearchfunctions,theinclusionofaudiorecordingsofmusicaltexts,
colourfacsimilesanddigitisedimagesfromtheoriginalworks,aswellastheremoval
106PeterRobinson,‘WhereWeAreWithElectronicScholarlyEditions,andWhereWeWantToBe’,JahrbuchfürComputerphilologie5,(2003),123-143,<http://computerphilologie.uni-muenchen.de/jg03/robinson.html>[accessed08/01/2016]107JeromeMcGann,‘TheRationaleofHyperText’,TextVol.9,(1996),11-32,15108McGann,‘TheRationaleofHyperText’,14-15
29
oftheneedforuserstoworkwithcomplexand‘cumbersome’scholar’sabbreviation
codes and allowing theuser to view thework in a form that appears closer to the
originaldocument,whereasthesemayhavebeenradicallyalteredinorderforthemto
fitintoacodex-basededition.McGanndescribestheshiftfromprinttodigitaleditions
as‘elementary’and‘revolutionary’,statingthatitwillallowusto‘storevastlygreater
quantitiesofdocumentarymaterials,andcanbebuilttoorganise,accessandanalyse
thosematerialsnotonlymorequicklyandeasily,butatdepthsnopaper-basededition
couldhopetoachieve’.109Hisessayfocusesheavilyonthebenefitsofhypertextediting
overprintededitions, rather than theproblems facedbyeditorsofdigital editions,
evenwhenthesearecausedbyahypertextedition’sdigitalnature,buthedoesmake
reference to the fact that such problems do exist; that is, he does not profess that
hypertexteditionsarethecureforalltheillsofscholarlyediting.
1.2.3Robinson’s2003stocktake
In2003,whendigitaleditionswerestillmuchmoreexperimentalthantheyaretoday
fifteenyearsdowntheline,Robinsondiscussedtheformatsandinformationthatcould
be included in digital editions. If McGann’s article ‘The Rationale of HyperText’ is
consideredoneofthefoundingarticlesfordigitaltextualscholarship,thenRobinson’s
‘WhereWeAreWithElectronicScholarlyEditions,andWhereWeWantToBe’canbe
consideredastocktakesometenyearsintotheprocessofthegeneralshiftfromprint
109McGann,‘TheRationaleofHyperText’,28
30
todigitaleditions.Someof thequestionsheasksand issuesheraises in thisarticle
have fallennaturallybythewayside,suchaswhetherelectroniceditionsshouldbe
distributedonlineoronCD-ROM–nowadaysitisunthinkablethataneweditionwould
bepresentedonCD-ROM:manynewcomputerslackthehardwaretoevenbeableto
read CD-ROMs – and others act as amirror inwhich to reflect on how electronic
scholarlyeditinghasprogressedsincethearticle’spublication.Forexample,Robinson
statesthatuptothetimeofpublicationno,oralmostnoelectroniceditioncontained
information ormethods of presentation that differed significantly from thatwhich
wouldhavebeenpossibleinprintedform.Thisisprobablytobeexpected,justasearly
printed books resembled manuscripts. Robinson states, ‘so far, most electronic
editionsdothesameasbookeditions:theyjustdomoreofit,perhapswithmarginally
moreconvenience.Inessence,theirproductisnotsignificantlydifferentqualitatively
tothatofprinteditions’.110Thisisnolongerthecase,justasRobinsonpredictsinhis
article,whenheexplainsthatamuchgreaterlevelofinteractivityonthepartofthe
readerwouldbecomethenormfordigitaleditions,allowingtheuseroftheeditionto
decidewhichbasetextthecollationwoulduse,ifanybasetextwastobeusedatall,
how thevariousversionsappear in relation tooneanotherand thedigital images,
whether the text they see appears diplomatically transcribed, whether or not
orthographyisnormalised,andhowvariantsappearinrelationtothebasetext.111One
exampleofsuchadigitaleditionwithsomeofthesefeatureswouldbeWard’sEstoria
Digital.112
110Robinson,‘WhereWeAreWithElectronicScholarlyEditions’,para.6111Robinson,‘WhereWeAreWithElectronicScholarlyEditions’,para.8112AengusWarded.,EstoriadeEspannaDigitalv.1.0(Birmingham:UniversityofBirmingham,2016)<estoria.bham.ac.uk>[accessed22/03/2018]
31
In his 2013 article ‘Towards a Theory of Digital Editions’,113Robinson called for a
theory of digital scholarly editions, distinct from the existing theory behind print
scholarlyeditions.Earlierinthedaysofdigitalediting,Robinsonargues,scholarsdid
notappeartohaverealisedtheneedforatheoryspecifictodigitaleditions,sincemuch
ofthetheorywouldcoincidewiththatofprinteditions,andgiventhatmanyelectronic
editions camewithadescriptionofwhatelectroniceditions coulddo in relation to
whatprinteditionscoulddo.Heremindsusthat‘adescriptionisnotatheory’,114and
goesontoexplainthatwhatscholarscoulddowithdigitaleditionsisnotthesameas
what they should do – ‘our resources are finite’, he reminds us, ‘and require us to
choosewhereweplaceoureffort’.115Robinson’scallforatheoryofdigitaleditionsis
basedonhisbeliefthatdigitalscholarlyeditionsaresofundamentallydifferentfrom
printed scholarly editions as to require their own theory. In the ways Robinson
predictedin2003,digitaleditionshavemovedonfromtheirprintcounterpartsand
have nowbecome significantly different from them inways that digital editions to
2003had yet to do. In 2016 he argued that such changesmay show the start of a
revolution.116Bordalejo,on theotherhand, followingTanselle,117contends that the
implementationofdigitaltoolshavenotchangedtextualscholarshipsoradicallyorat
sucha fundamental levelas torepresentarevolution inthe field. ‘There isnosuch
thingasdigitalscholarlyediting’,shestates,‘thereisonlyscholarlyediting,whichcan
bepublishedinprintordigitalformat,butthatremainsthesamedisciplinelinkedto
113PeterRobinson,‘Towardsatheoryofdigitaleditions’,Variants,10(2013),105-131,https://www.academia.edu/3233227/Towards_a_Theory_of_Digital_Editions[accessed12/12/2018]114Robinson,‘TowardsaTheoryofDigitalEditions’,106115Robinson,‘TowardsaTheoryofDigitalEditions’,106116Robinson,‘TheDigitalRevolutioninScholarlyEditing’,p.181117G.ThomasTanselle,‘Foreword’,inBurnard,O’Brian,O’KeefeandUnsworth(eds.)ElectronicTextualEditing,(2006)http://www.tei-c.org/About/Archive_new/ETE/Preview/tanselle.xml[accessed21/11/2017]
32
meticuloushistorical-criticalworkcarriedoutbytextualscholarsorundertheirdirect
supervision.’118
WhilstIagreewithBordalejothatprintededitionsanddigitaleditionsrepresenttwo
branchesofthesametree,IcanappreciateRobinson’sviewpoint:ahypertextedition
witha significant levelofuser controlover thepresentation is fundamentallyvery
differentfromaprintedition.IagreewithRobinsonthatatheoryfordigitalscholarly
editionswouldbeuseful,andthatwecannotsimplyapplythetheoryofprintscholarly
editions,sincethemethodologyofcreatingthesetwotypesofeditionsisverydifferent.
Whetherornotthesedifferencesrepresentarevolutioninthefield,however,isastep
further.Creatingaprinteditionislikegoingtoarestaurantwithawide-ranginggroup
offriendsandorderingadifferentmealforeachperson,cateringfortheirindividual
tastes,justasaprinteditorcancaterforthedifferingneedsofvariousaudiences–for
examplegeneralreaders,students,andexpertsinthefield,allofwhomwouldbenefit
mostfromusingadifferentstyleofeditiontooneanother.Creatingadigitaleditionis
liketakingthisgroupoffriendstoabuffetwhereyouaseditorhavetoselectarange
ofdishesforthedinerstochoosefrombackatthetable.Whilstthemethodologyof
providingeveryonewithamealisdifferent,abuffetdoesnotrepresentarevolutionin
thefieldofeatingout.Forthisreason,onthismatterIfindmyselfmoreconvincedby
Bordalejo,thatwearenotyetwitnessestoarevolutioninscholarlyediting.
118BárbaraBordalejo,‘DigitalversusAnalogueTextualScholarshiportheRevolutionisJustintheTitle’,DigitalPhilology7.1(Spring2018),52-73,69
33
1.2.4Theadvantagesofdigitaloverprinteditions
The advantages for users of digital editions over print editions are also given by
theologian and textual scholar David Parker in his 2003 article Through a Screen
Darkly:DigitalTextsandtheNewTestament.119Inthisarticle,Parkerarguesthatthe
useofcomputerstostudymanuscriptsandthecreationofdigitaleditionswithhigh
quality images of the original documents is changing not only who can study
manuscripts,butalsohowthesemanuscriptscanbestudied.Parkerarguesthatdigital
editionsdemocratisethestudyofmanuscripts,whichenablesthemtobestudiedby
anyonewithaccesstotheInternet,ratherthanjustthosewiththefundingandfacilities
inplacetoallowthemaccesstolargeandexpensiveresearchlibrariesandarchives.
Whilstthisisaromanticnotion,andforthemostpartmayprovetocometrueforsome
individuals,thefactremainsthatthereareotherskillsrequiredtostudymanuscripts,
evenwhentheyaredigitisedandfreelyavailableonline(which,ofcourse,manyare
not,forinstancemanuscript(s)EoftheEstoriadeEspannawhichactsasthebasetext
fortheEstoriaDigital,andthedigitalCPSF,aboutwhich,morewillbewrittenlater).120
Ifnon-specialistusersofdigital editionsare tobeable to studymanuscripts to the
extentthatwecouldconsidertheareatobedemocratised,theywouldrequirealevel
ofskillinpalaeography,andatleastabasicunderstandingofmedievalhistoriography.
Acynicmayalsoquestiontowhatextentitislikelythatalonescholar,particularlya
non-specialist, is likely to embark on close manuscript study using digitised
manuscripts.Theoretically, this is entirelypossible, andperhapsmore likely in the
119Parker,‘ThroughaScreenDarkly’,395-411120E1:BibliotecadelMonasteriodeElEscorialY-i-2;E2:BibliotecadelMonasteriodeElEscorialX-i-4.
34
future,althoughthisremainstobeseeninreality.Bordalejocommentspointedlyon
thematter,remindingusthatthedigitisationofmanuscriptscanbeademocratising
forceonly‘ifweconvenientlyforgetthatreliable,low-costInternetaccessisaprivilege
thatmostlybenefitsAnglophoneandglobalnorthcountries’.121Onthepointthatthe
BritishLibrary’sdigitisedimagesofthefourth-centuryCodexSinaicticuswasreceiving
around10,000hitsamonth,medievalscholarA.S.G.Edwardsbitinglyaskswhether
theBritishLibrary’sinvestmentindigitisationrepresentsaninvestmentinscholarship
or ‘in a new branch of the entertainment industry’.122 It would perhaps be more
accuratetosaythatdigitisationcanofferalimitedlevelofdemocratisation,soParker’s
abovepointcouldbeconsideredvalid,whentakenwithsomecaveats.
Thedigitisationofmanuscriptsandthecreationofdigitaleditions,Parkercontends,
affecthowthematerialsarestudied,sinceaccessto(theimagesof)primarymaterials
willbeeasierandmorecommon,meaningtheeditor’sdecisionscanbemuchmore
easily scrutinised by users, and the possibility to include and link to much more
informationinadigitaleditionthanispossibleinaprintedition,allowingmaterialsto
be analysed in sophisticatedways farmore easily thanwas previously possible.123
Parker goes on to argue that the statusof standard editionswill be fundamentally
weakenedwiththeincreaseduseofdigitaleditionswhereprimarymaterialsare‘given
ahigherpriorityandmadeavailabletotheuser’.Thisisbecause,asmentionedabove,
usersoftheseeditionswillbemorelikelytoexpecttoscrutinisedecisionsmadebythe
121Bordalejo‘DigitalversusAnalogue’,54122A.S.G.Edwards,‘BacktotheReal?’,TimesLiterarySupplement(7thJune2013),para.7,https://www.the-tls.co.uk/articles/public/back-to-the-real/[accessed24/10/2017]123Parker,‘ThroughaScreenDarkly’,404-409
35
editorandexamineforthemselvestheimagesoftheoriginaldocumentsinawaythat
untiltheadventofhighqualitydigitalimagingandtheinclusionoftheseinelectronic
editions was far more difficult, 124 unless the user was to make use of expensive
facsimileeditions.Eventheuseoffacsimileeditions,however,doesnotallowforas
muchscrutinyasthoseforwhichhighqualitydigitalimagesarefreelyavailable,since,
aspointedoutbyAndrewPrescott, facsimilesarenotalwaysas trueto theoriginal
documentastheymayseem,dependingontheirage,giventheamountofre-touching
whichmayhavetakenplaceaspartoftheircreation.125
1.2.5Document,textandwork
Robinson’s theory in theaforementionedarticle ‘TowardsaTheory’ isbasedonhis
understanding of the meanings of three key terms within textual scholarship:
document, text and work, which were mentioned very briefly earlier, but their
definitionswerenotcritiqued.Asseenabove,Bordalejoarguesthatadocumentisthe
physical support (manuscript folio, paper, scroll etc.) on which marks have been
intentionallyinscribedwiththeaimofcommunicating–inmostcasesthismeansthere
iswriting(handwrittenorprint)onthedocument,designedtobereadbyareading
agent(humanormachine).126Accordingtohertheory,thesemarksarenotpartofthe
document:theyarethetext.ElenaPierazzo’sconcept,ontheotherhand,isdifferent:
124Parker,‘ThroughaScreenDarkly’,404125AndrewPrescott'”UntouchedbytheHand”:ReconsideringtheEditionandFacsimile’,UsersofScholarlyEditions:EditorialAnticipationsofReading,StudyingandConsulting,12thAnnualConferenceoftheEuropeanSocietyforTextualScholarship,(DeMontfortUniversity,19-21November2015)126Bordalejo,‘TheTextsWeSee,’65-68
36
shecontendsthatthedocumentincludestheintentionalmarksmadeuponit,designed
tobe read.127ForPierazzo, the text is themeaning ascribedby the reader to these
intentionalmarks.128IfindtheargumentofBordalejomostconvincing.
Accordingtohisownimplieddefinition,whichhedoesnotgoasfarastostateoutright
in‘TowardsaTheory’,Robinsonarguesthattheactofreadingcomessonaturallythat
‘wethinkwearereadingatextwhichisactuallypresentinthebookwearereading,
independentofourreadingofit.Butwearenot.’ClosertoPierazzothanBordalejoon
thisissue,hearguesthatthetextexistsonlyinthemindofthereader,andisformed
byeverythingelseweknowaboutthemeaningfulmarkswearereading–ourability
tointerprettheshapesofthelettersandcreatemeaningfromthem,ourunderstanding
ofthewiderworkthatthetextformspartof,andourownexternalcontextandprior
experienceasreaders.129Itisforthisreason,Robinsonexplains,thatwecanre-read
abookandunderstanditdifferently–thebook(thedocument)hasnotchanged;we
have changed, and so the meaning we take from the book, the text we believe it
communicates,haschanged.130
Robinson’stheoryonlyworksifyouconsidertheintentionalmarksmade,designedto
beread,tobepartofthedocument,ratherthanthetext.Itisintheirunderstandings
ofthisconceptthatRobinson’sdefinitiondiffersjustslightlyfromthatofBordalejo:
127ElenaPierazzo,DigitalScholarlyEditing:Theories,ModelsandMethods(Oxford:Routledge,2015)pp.49-50availableathttps://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01182162/document[accessed08/11/2017]128Pierazzo,DigitalScholarlyEditing,49-50129Robinson,‘TowardsaTheoryofDigitalEditions’,117-118130Robinson,‘TowardsaTheoryofDigitalEditions’,120
37
forBordalejothetextistheintentionalmarksweseeinthedocument(hencethetitle
ofherarticle‘TheTextsWeSeeandtheWorksWeImagine’)anditisthemeaningof
thetextwhichiscreatedinthemindofthereader,131atheorywhichIpersonallywould
agreewith;justasthemetaphoricalfallingtreemakesasoundwhetherornotthereis
anyonetheretohearit.Robinson’stree,ontheotherhand,hasnosoundunlessthere
issomeonetheretohear it: thetext itself,heargues,existsonly in themindof the
reader,andthemeaningfulmarksonthepagebecomea ‘text’onlywhentheyhave
meaningascribedtothembythereader.
Bordalejogoesontoarguethatvariantstatesofthetext(butnotthetextitself,which
ispresentinthedocumentwhetherornotareaderispresent)arecreatedinthemind
ofthereaderwhentheseintentionalmeaningfulmarksaretakenfromthedocument
andthereadermakesdecisionsabouttheirinterpretation.Inmanycasesofeditions,
theeditortakessuchdecisionsonbehalfofthereader,andpresentshistaketothe
reader.TotakeRobinson’sexamples,areader(oraneditor)mayseeanemendatory
mark such as an underdot, and may decide that the underdotted text is to be
disregardedfromthefinalmeaningofthetext.132Thereforetwotextualvariantsare
created in the mind of the reader (or editor): the original form and the emended
form.133
Within scholarly editing, the concept ofwork, however, is evenmore problematic.
Bordalejo’sphrasingis:‘theworkisaconceptioninthemindofanauthorataparticular
131Bordalejo,‘TheTextsWeSee’,65-68132Robinson,‘TowardsaTheoryofDigitalEditions’,114133Bordalejo,‘TheTextsWeSee’,68
38
pointintimethatservesasaminimaldenominatortoidentifyitsremainingphysical
manifestations’. 134 Bordalejo is following to some extent what she describes as
Tanselle’s‘classic’notion,thattheworkexistsonlyasanabstractconceptinthemind
oftheauthor,andthatthetextswhichexistindocumentaryformcanonlyserveas
partial representations of the work, although she points out she does not follow
Tanselletotheextentthatsheagreesthatitisthejobofaneditortoalwaysrecover
the original authorially-intended text.135Indeed, the very notion of an authorially-
intendedtext isproblematicwithintextualscholarshipofmedieval texts,and is far
fromstraightforwardforthespecificcaseofthisthesis,theCPSF,consideredbymany
scholarsandnon-expertsalikeaspartoftheEstoriadeEspanna,butmuchofwhich
waswrittensomefortyyearsafterthedeathofAlfonsoX,theauthorandpatronofthe
Estoriainitsfirstmanifestation.136Eventheconceptofanauthorforamedievaltextis
problematic;medievaltextsdid,ofcourse,haveanauthor,butasIwilldiscussfurther
later,thisisnotasunequivocalasourmodernunderstandingoftherole.Itherefore
cannotadherecompletely toBordalejo’snotionofwork for thespecificcaseof this
thesis,eventhoughshedistancesherselffromtheideathataneditorshouldalways
aimtorecovertheoriginalauthorially-intendedtext:Iwouldarguethatherdefinition
isusefulfortextfromtheprintera,andwheretherewasaspecificauthor,whetheror
notwecannowidentifythisauthor.Inthecaseofmedievaltexts,however,ratherthan
beingwhattheoriginalauthor,orpatron,conceivedagivenworktobe,theconceptof
what constitutes a givenwork andwhat does not ismore a group decision, often
unconsciouslytaken,andovermanyyears,centurieseven.Forthenotionofworkfor
134Bordalejo,‘TheTextsWeSee’,71;emphasismine.135Bordalejo,‘TheTextsWeSee’,69136SeelaterforadiscussionofAlfonso’sroleasauthoroftheEstoriadeEspanna.
39
textsofthepre-printera,Bordalejo’sdefinitiondoesnotserveuscompletely.Rather,
Robinsonoffersausefuldefinition:‘theworkisthesetoftextswhichishypothesized
asorganicallyrelated,intermsofthecommunicativeactswhichtheypresent’.137Itis
thisdefinitionthatthepresentthesisfollows,givenitsfocusonpre-printeratexts.It
isthewayinwhichthedecisionistakenastowhatexactlyconstitutesagivenmedieval
workandwhatdoesnotthatcreatesaleveloffuzzinessorindistinctnesssurrounding
someworks,particularly thosewithmanyvariantwitnesses,producedovera long
periodoftime,andgivesrisetomuchacademicdiscussiononthematterinthemodern
day. One could even go as far as to argue that following Robinson’s definition, an
editionproducedtodayofatextfromthepre-printerawouldthereforebecomepart
ofthenotionalwork,partofitstextualtransmission,justaswitnessesofthetext,with
variantsandemendations,arealsopartofthework.Thecasewithprintedmaterial
where there is a specific author, according to our modern notion of authorship,
however,isdifferent.HerewecanseethevalidityofBordalejo’snotion:Icouldcopy
outHarryPotterandthePhilosopher’sStone,makeemendationsaccordingtomyown
politics and personal wont, as medieval scribes and patrons of later witnesses of
earliermanuscriptswoulddo, and republish it, but the resulting textwouldnotbe
HarryPotter.Myversionwouldberelatedtoit,butitwouldnotformpartofthework
asoriginally conceivedby theauthor,norwould thewider communitybe likely to
consider it tobeHarryPotter. Putmost simply, thedifferencehere isbasedon the
conceptofauthorship,which,asIwillexplainbelowinsection1.3.1,isdifferentfor
textsfromthemedievalperiodtothatofmoremoderntexts.
137PeterRobinson,‘TheDigitalRevolutioninScholarlyEditing’,B.Crostini,G.IversenandB.M.Jensen,(eds.),ArsEdendiLectureSeries,vol.IV(Stockholm:StockholmUniversityPress,2016)pp.181-207,p.197
40
Robinson’sunderstandingofthedocument,textandworkunderpinshisargumentsin
‘TowardsaTheory’againstthedigitaleditingstylesoftwocontemporaryestablished
editors,GablerandPierazzo.Bothofwhom,Robinsonnotes,haveshownintheirwork
to hold the view that digital editing should be ‘document-centred’,138and that it is
bettertoeditfromasingledocument.139RobinsonexplainsGabler’stheoryofediting
inthefollowingway:
He distinguishes betweenwhat he sees as “endogenous” to the document –essentially,whatcanbededuceddirectlyfromthedocumentitself–andwhathe sees as “exogenous” to it. For him, everythingwhich cannot be deduceddirectly from the document, including all knowledge of the author, of thecircumstancesofthedocument’screationandtransmission,ofotherversionsof the work understood as present in the document, indeed everythingnormallyunderstoodby“work”is“exogenous”.Gableracknowledgesthatthis“exogenous” information is important, but he specifically and categoricallyexcludesitallfromtheeditorialact,asappliedtothedocument.140
RobinsonalsonotesthatGabler’sadvocacyfordigitaleditingfromasingledocument
is likely to surprise those who are familiar with his edition Ulysses, 141 , which, as
mentioned above, is based not on a single copy-text, but on a huge collection of
‘worksheets, drafts, typescripts, and proofs’ in an aim to reconstruct Joyce’s as he
originallywroteit.142Robinson’sargumentthatthemeaningofatextisdeterminedby
thereader’sunderstanding,ortouseGabler’sterm,thatthetextisgivenmeaningonly
whenreadthroughthelensofalloftheexogenousinformationaboutthattextwhich
isavailabletothereader,showshowRobinson’sviewofeditingisatoddswiththatof
Gabler,whichRobinsondescribesas ‘counter-intuitive’.143To illustratehisview,he
138Robinson,‘TowardsaTheoryofDigitalEditions’,111139Robinson,‘TowardsaTheoryofDigitalEditions’,112140Robinson,‘TowardsaTheoryofDigitalEditions’,112141Robinson,‘TowardsaTheoryofDigitalEditions’,110142Rossman,154143Robinson,‘TowardsaTheoryofDigitalEditions’,113
41
givestheexampleofPrueShaw’selectroniceditionofDante’sCommedia.Thisisan
edition of several recensions, where no one recension is more authoritative than
another,soitwouldbeinappropriatetocreatetheeditionbyusingjustonedocument.
Furthermore,Robinsonarguesthatitwouldbe impossible toadequately transcribe
thetextofthedocumentsinordertopreparetheeditionwithouttakingintoaccount
theexogenousinformationavailabletothetranscriber(whototranscribe,mustfirst
readthetext).144Therelevanceofthistothisthesisisthat,basedonRobinson’stheory,
andfollowingShaw’sexample,boththedigitalCPSF,andthewiderEstoriaDigital,are
editionsbasedonseveralrecensionsofthesamework,wherewheneverthereisno
authorial original (such as Biblioteca del Monasterio de El Escorial (henceforth
‘Escorial’) Y-I-2 (E1) and the first 17 folios of Escorial X-i-4 (E2),where there is a
witnessofthetextproducedintheAlfonsinescriptorium,andduringthelifetimeof
the king)145no single manuscript is consideredmore authoritative than the other
manuscriptsineachrespectivecase.
1.2.6ExtensibleMarkupLanguageandtheTextEncodingInitiative
In2009KennethPrice,co-directoroftheaforementionedWhitmanArchive,wrote:
It is of the utmost importance that electronic scholarly editions adhere tointernational standards. Projects that are idiosyncratic are almost certain to
144Robinson,‘TowardsaTheoryofDigitalEditions’,113-116145InésFernández-Ordóñez,‘Eltallerhistoriográficoalfonsí.LaEstoriadeEspañaylaGeneralEstoriaenelmarcodelasobraspromovidasporAlfonsoelSabio,’JesúsMontoyaMartínezandAnaDomínguezRodríguez(coords.)ElScriptoriumalfonsí:delosLibrosdeAstrologíaalas‘CantigasdeSantaMaría’,(Madrid:FundaciónUniversidadComplutense,1999),pp.105-126,PDFversionhttps://www.uam.es/personal_pdi/filoyletras/ifo/publicaciones/4_cl.pdf[accessed17/05/2016]
42
remainstand-aloneefforts:theyhaveeffectivelyabandonedthepossibilityofinteroperability.146
Price references Marilyn Deegan, who describes interoperability, a ‘key issue’ for
electroniceditions,astheabilityto‘exchangedataatsomelevelwithothersystems’.147
Shedefines‘data’bysplittingitintotwoseparatebutrelatedconcepts:data,‘theraw
materialderivingfromthesource’,andmetadata,‘addedsymbolsthatdescribesome
features of the data’,mentioning specifically Text Encoding Initiative (TEI) textual
markupasanexampleofmetadata.148TheTEIdescribesitselfasa‘consortiumwhich
collectivelydevelopsandmaintainsastandardfortherepresentationoftextsindigital
form’.149 The TEI uses Extensible Markup Language (XML)150 to encode metadata
about texts by allowing editors (or transcribers) to choose which information is
deemedrelevanttotheirprojectandtotagit(markitup)usingXML.151Astylesheet
can transform the XML into HTML (HyperText Markup Language) for display to
users,152withakeypossiblefeatureofdigitaleditions,suchastheEstoriaDigital,and
thedigitalCPSF,beingthatuserscanaffecthowtheeditiondisplaysbychoosingfrom
146KennethPrice,‘ElectronicScholarlyEditions’,inSusanSchreibmanandRaySiemens(ed.),ACompaniontoDigitalLiteraryStudies(Oxford:Blackwell,2009)para.20,<www.whitmanarchive.org/about/articles/anc.00267.html>[accessed2/4/2016]147MarilynDeegan,‘CollectionandPreservationofanElectronicEdition’,LouBurnard,KatherineO’BrienO’KeeffeandJohnUnsworth(eds.)ElectronicTextualEditing(NewYork:ModernLanguageAssociation,2006)para.10,<www.tei-c.org/sites/default/About/Archive_new?ETE?Preview?mcgovern.xml>[accessed7/2/2016]148Deegan,para.18149TextEncodingInitiative,‘TEI:TextEncodingInitiative’,(2013)<http://www.tei-c.org/index.xml>[accessed17/02/2016];PeterRobinsongivesaneloquentandpersonally-writtenhistoryoftextencodingatThebackgroundtotheTextualCommunitiesproject(2013)<http://www.textualcommunities.usask.ca/web/textual-community/wiki/-/wiki/Main/The+background+to+the+Textual+Communities+Project>lastupdated22/11/2013[accessed18/2/2016]150TheTEIwebsitepointsoutthatitusesXMLatthemoment,butwasoriginallydesignedtoworkwithXML’spredecessor,SGML(StandardGeneralizedMarkupLanguage),andmayinthefuturebereformattedtoworkinotherways.TextEncodingInitiative,‘AboutTheseGuidelines’,(n.d.)<http://www.tei-c.org/release/doc/tei-p5-doc/en/html/AB.html>[accessed17/02/2016]151Price,para.21152Price,para.21
43
variousoptionswithintherangeoftaggedaspectsofthetext.Forexample,asIwill
describemorefullybelow,thetextofthemanuscriptsinbothoftheseeditionshave
beentranscribedandtaggedusingXMLforbothabbreviatedandexpandedversions
ofsomewords.Usersofthesetwodigitaleditionswillbeabletochoosewhetherto
viewtheabbreviatedtextor theexpandedversionbyselectingtherelevantoption.
This is thenconvertedautomaticallyby theencodingof thedigital edition, and the
selectionisdisplayedtotheuser.ItisimportanttorecognisethatnotallthatisXMLis
TEI-compliant,butrather,asMartinMuellerhasputit,‘TEIisadialectofXML’.153The
TEI offers a standard for theXML encoding of texts;154for example, the publishing
houseofelectroniceditionsofclassicHispanictextsClásicosHispánicosadoptedTEI-
compatible XML as their standard format in February 2016. 155 The use of TEI-
compliantXMLfordigitaleditinggivesthepossibilityformoreprojectsorsystemsto
becompatiblewithoneanother,156ortouseDeegan’sterm,tobeinteroperable.
TEI is not, however,without fault, and scholars such asHughHoughton andPeter
Robinson have pointed out aweakness of TEImarkup. Robinson explains that the
communicativeactofthetextisonehierarchytobeencoded,whichcanbedividedup
intobooks,chapters,stanzas,versesetc.,andasecondhierarchytobeencodedisthe
divisionofthedocumentintowritingspaces:pages,quires,codices,columns,margins,
153MartinMueller,‘AbouttheFutureoftheTEI’,LettertomemberoftheTEI-CBoardandCouncil,dated04/08/2011,<http://ariadne.northwestern.edu/mmueller/teiletter.pdf>[accessed17/02/2016]p.3154TextEncodingInitiative,TEI:TextEncodingInitiative,155JoséCalvoTello,emailtoHumanidadesDigitalesHispánicasMailingList(9thMarch2016)156H.A.G.HoughtonandC.J.Smith,‘DigitalEditingandtheGreekNewTestament’,ClaireClivaz,PaulDilleyandDavidHamidović(eds.)TheAncientWorldsinADigitalCulture.(DigitalBiblicalStudies1)(Leiden:Brill,2016)<http://pure-oai.bham.ac.uk/ws/files/25092181/2016_Houghton_and_Smith_revised.pdf>[accessed17/02/2016]7
44
lines.Whenthesedivisionsdonothappentocoincide(forexample,aparagraphruns
fromonefoliotothenext),representingthetwohierarchiesinoneTEI-compliantXML
document is not easy, and over the years scholars have had to invent ways to
circumnavigate the issue, suchas the forcedprioritisationofoneof thehierarchies
overtheother.157Withthesameissueinmind,HoughtonremindsusthattheTEIis
primarilyconcernedwiththeencodingoftextsratherthandocuments,(itis,afterall,
theTextEncodingInitiative).158Thisisanissueencounteredinthepreparationofthe
EstoriaDigitalandthedigitalCPSF,soIwillreturntothispointinChapterThree.
AfurtherpointtobemadeaboutTEIXMListhatthereisoftenmorethanonewayto
encodethesameaspect,whichasMuellerpointsout,canbe(andis)marketedasan
advantagebytheTEIitself,andallowsforacertaindegreeofpersonalisationandgives
theflexibilitytotagelementsnotpreviouslyencountered.159However,Muellergoes
on to say that there beingmore than oneway to tag the samematerial can cause
‘inconsistency and unnecessary complexity’ for users and programmers,which can
harmthepotentialinteroperabilityoftextsencodedusingTEIXML.160
157PeterRobinson,‘SomePrinciplesfortheMakingofCollaborativeScholarlyEditionsinDigitalForm’(Draftcopy),SeminarProgram:GöttingenDialoginDigitalHumanities2015,(GöttingenCentreforDigitalHumanities,26May2015)<https://www.academia.edu/12297061/Some_principles_for_the_making_of_collaborative_scholarly_editions_in_digital_form>[accessed17/02/2016]158H.A.G.Houghton,‘TheElectronicScriptorium:MarkupforNewTestamentManuscripts’,ClaireClivaz,AndrewGregoryandDavidHamidović(eds.),DigitalHumanitiesinBiblical,JewishandEarlyChristianStudies(ScholarlyCommunication2),(Leiden:Brill,2013)31–60.<http://pure-oai.bham.ac.uk/ws/files/14577500/2013_Houghton_DH_preprint.pdf>[accessed17/02/2016]43-44.159PaulSpence,‘Ediciónacadémicaenlaeradigital:Modelos,difusiónyprocesodeinvestigación’,AnuarioLopedeVega.Texto,literatura,cultura,XX(2014),47-83,52160Mueller,p.9
45
Shillingsburg stated in 2006 that ‘despite its shortcomings, TEI-conformantXML is
currentlythebestlanguageandmarkupfortranscriptionsandothertextmaterials’,161
and that ‘theonlygenerallyagreedupon industry standard forelectronic scholarly
editionstodate[2006]istheTEIstandardmarkupsystem’.162Overadecadelaterwe
findourselvesinthesameposition,withTEI-compliantXMLhavingbecomethe‘lingua
franca’ for digital scholarly editing. 163 shown by the fact that its most current
guidelines,entitledP5,andwhichwerereleased in2007,164arebeingorhavebeen
used by several current or recent major transcription projects. Examples include
Robinson’s Textual Communities project for web-based collaborative scholarly
editing,165(andthereforetheEstoriaDigital,whichinitiallyusedTextualCommunities
platformforitstranscriptions,andbyextensionthedigitalCPSF,whichusessomeof
the Estoria Digital transcriptions), the International Greek New Testament Project
transcriptions, 166 and the Online Froissart Project. 167 Additionally, versions of
Bordalejo’s TEI P5-compliant XML encoding system as used in Shaw’s Commedia
project have been implemented in both the Canterbury Tales project and the
Cancionerosproject.168
161Shillingsburg,p.106162Shillingsburg,p.98163Mueller,p.3164TextEncodingInitiative,TEIP5Guidelines(2015)<http://www.tei-c.org/Guidelines/P5/>[accessed18/2/2016]165TextualCommunities,DefaultTranscriptionGuidelines,(n.d.)<http://www.textualcommunities.usask.ca/web/textual-community/wiki/-/wiki/Main/Default+transcription+guidelines>[accessed18/02/2016]166H.A.G.Houghton,IGNTPguidelinesforXMLtranscriptionsofNewTestamentmanuscripts.Version1.4.Manual.InternationalGreekNewTestamentProject(2013)(unpublished)<http://epapers.bham.ac.uk/1727/5/IGNTP_XML_guidelines_1-4.pdf>[accessed18/02/2016]167AinsworthandCroenen(eds.)‘TechnicalAspects’,TheOnlineFroissart,version1.5<http://www.hrionline.ac.uk/onlinefroissart/apparatus.jsp?type=context&context=technical_aspects>[accessed18/02/2016]168BárbaraBordalejo,Appendices:C.TheCommediaProjectEncodingSystem,(2010)<http://sd-editions.com/AnaServer?commedia+6215691+viewarticle.anv+printdoc+1>[accessed18/2/2016]
46
1.2.7Digitallyeditingmanuscriptprose
Inhisaforementioned2003articleThroughaScreenDarkly,Parkerarguesthatrather
than simply ‘avoiding the traditional drudgery’ associatedwith textual scholarship,
whichinvolvedagreatdealofpainstakingcopyingout,forexampleforthecreationby
handofcollationtables,theuseofcomputersisdramaticallyandirrevocablychanging
thenatureoftextualscholarshipitselfbyalteringtherelationshipofthescholartothe
textbeingstudiedandthetextbeingcreated.169Heasserts that theshift fromprint
towardsdigitaleditionsisdemocratisingthestudyoftheprimarymaterial:‘itwillno
longerbeavailableonlytopeoplewithaccessto largeresearch librariescontaining
expensivefacsimiles,editions,microformcollectionsandmanuscripts,buttoanybody
with a browser’. 170 This, as concluded above, is true to a degree, and in certain
circumstances.Deegan,rejectingthedocument-basededitingstyleofscholarssuchas
Gabler and Pierazzo, and instead following the respective styles of Robinson and
McGann, gives further advantages of digital editions over print editions when she
statesthatelectronicediting‘allowsthesituationofaworkwithinanexusofsocial,
contextual, and historical materials, all of which contribute to the totality of its
meaning’.171Digitaleditingisnot,however,acureforallillsrelatedtoprinteditions,
andasWardargues,editingandrepresentingatextdigitallyratherthaninacodex-
basededitioncanmakethetaskmorecomplex,despiteits‘apparentsimplicity’.172In
169Parker,‘ThroughaScreenDarkly’,395170Parker,‘ThroughaScreenDarkly’,409171Deegan,para.2172Ward‘EditingtheEstoria’,194
47
short, digital editing creates problems aswell as solving them.173This sectionwill
examine some of the advantages anddisadvantages related to digitally editing and
representingmanuscripts,and inparticularprosemanuscripts,sincetheEstoriade
EspannaandtheCPSFbothfallintothiscategory.
1.2.7.1Searchablefiles
AkeyfeatureoftextsdigitallytranscribedandencodedusingXMListhecreationofa
searchable file. This makes it simpler and more straightforward for scholars to
research various aspects of the text they are studying than is possiblewhen using
purelyprinteditions.AsRobinsonpointsout,thereareseveraltoolsavailabletousers
of digital scholarly editions to analyse, compare and visualise texts, some ofwhich
wereavailableinmanualforminthepre-digitalerabutwhich‘wouldtakefarlonger
forfarfewertexts,wouldbelimitedbywhatonecoulddowithpencilandbasicmaths,
and [would] be constrained in itspresentation possibilities.’ By contrast, he states,
more tools areavailable to scholarsdigitallyand functions canbe carriedoutwith
‘remarkable ease’, such as the comparison of multiple texts, the creation of
hypotheticalfamilytreesandthehypothesisoftextualancestors.174Thedatacreated
in an electronic edition can be kept for use by other scholars and indeed future
scholars,whowillanalyseitinwaysthecreatorsofthedatamaynothaveenvisaged,
orinwaysnotlimitedbycurrentsoftwareorhardware.However,itisimportantto
173Robinson,‘TowardsaTheoryofDigitalEditions’,106;JoséManuelLucíaMegías,‘EditarenInternet’Incipit18(1998),1-40,5174PeterRobinson,‘TheConceptoftheWorkintheDigitalAge’,Ecdotica,10(2013),13-41,34
48
rememberthatwithintheconfinesofcurrentsearchsoftware, it issometimesonly
possibletosearchusingthesearchtoolsprovidedbydigitaleditors,fortheaspectsof
thetextthathavebeentagged.Inatalkatthe2ndAnnualColloquiumoftheEstoriade
Espanna Digital project, Leyre Martín Aizpuru described how her research into
medievalpunctuationusageinmanuscriptshassometimesbeenhamperedbyalack
oftagging,sinceshecannotsearchelectronicallytranscribedmanuscriptsforelements
of punctuation that have not been tagged. 175 This is not the case if the user can
downloadtheXMLtranscriptionsandsearchusingothertools,suchasXMLediting
software,butthisisalesscommonmethodofsearching,anddoesnotmakeuseofany
search tools provided by editors. It can be difficult for transcribers and editors of
digitalprojectstoforeseewhichelementsotherresearchersmaywishtosearchtheir
datafor,andwiththebestwillintheworld,giventheconstraintsoftimeandmoney,
usually cannot tag everything. This unfortunately can limit the search and study
possibilities for other scholars. It remains to be seen whether this issue will be
alleviatedinthefuture,asdataprocessingprogrammesevolve.
1.2.7.2Electroniccollation
A furtherbenefit todigital editors is theelectronic creationof concordancesanda
critical apparatus and the automatic digital collation of the text using collation
software.Asearlyas1994Greethamannouncedthatcomputerscanremovemuchof
175LeyreMartínAizpuru,‘TEIalserviciodelapuntuaciónmanuscritadeladocumentacióndelacancilleríarealcastellanadelsigloXIII.Unapropuestademarcado,’SecondAnnualColloquiumoftheEstoriadeEspannaDigitalproject(UniversityofOxford,MagdalenCollege,14-15November2014)
49
the ‘drudgery’ previously involved in textual scholarship.176It is nowunlikely that
collations,concordancesorcriticalapparatuseswouldbecreatedbyhandinscholarly
editingprojects;theonomasticindexoftheEstoriaDigital,createdbyFionaMaguire,
for example, was created using digitalmethods.177Wesley Raabe has blogged that
thosewhocreatesuchtoolsbyhandsoarecreating‘monumentstodiligence’,andthat
manualmethods,havingbeensupersededinaccuracybyelectroniceditions,should
now be retired since the technology is available. 178 Nevertheless, Trovato has
pointedly stated that the computerised collation of texts can be an extremely slow
processbecauseofthetimeinvolvedinthepreparationofthedata,givingtheexample
ofShaw’sCommediawhichappearsatfacevaluetohavetakenthreeyearstocollate‘a
meresevenwitnesses’,179althoughmypersonalexperienceintheEstoriaDigitalhas
taughtmethatnotallof thetimeallocatedtothepreparationofadigitaledition is
dedicatedpurelytothemechanicsofpreparingthecollation:theEstoriaprojectran
forfouryears,butthisdidnotmeanthatcreatingthecollationofthefivewitnesses
tookall fouryears, since thepreparationof adigital edition comprisesmanymore
tasks,someofwhicharedescribedinlater.Electroniccollationhasmanyadvantages
overmanualcollation.Robinsonhaslistedthreeofthemajorbenefits:itispossibleto
experimentwithdifferentlevelsofregularisationordifferentmastertextswhenusing
anelectroniccollation;electroniccollationsarelikelytobemoreaccuratethanmanual
collations(providingtheoriginaltranscriptionsareaccurate,whichheremindsus,are
176Greetham,TextualScholarship–AnIntroduction,p.359177Atthetimeofwriting,thisfunctionhasnotyetgoneliveontheEstoriaDigitalpage,butisplannedforthenearfuture.178WesleyRaabe,‘CollationinScholarlyEditing:AnIntroduction’(26/7/2008)FillHisHeadFirstwithaThousandQuestions,<https://wraabe.wordpress.com/2008/07/26/collation-in-scholarly-editing-an-introduction-draft/>[accessed18/2/2016]179Trovato,pp.210-211
50
easier tocheckthanamanualcollation is);andthatquite frankly,Trovato’searlier
commentsnotwithstanding, creatinga collationelectronically ismuchquicker than
thetime-consumingandlaborioustaskofcreatingonemanually.180Itisworthnoting
that we are also beginning to see the development and use of handwritten text
recognition (HTR) software for transcription and tagging of handwritten historical
documents,whichpromisestolessentheloadheretoo.Currently,suchtechnologyis
cutting-edge,underdevelopment,181andisonlyjuststartingtobeused(forexample
inthedigitalSietePartidas),182butitisveryprobablethatwewillseethetechnique
beingdevelopedfurther,refined,andusedfarmorewidelyinthenearfuture.
In1994,Greethamstatedthatatthetimecomputersweremosthelpfulintheearly
stagesandthelatestagesofthepreparationoftheedition:thecollationandfiliation,
andthenconcordanceandindexing,whilstthemiddlestageoftheprocess,thetextual
criticism and emendation,was still donemoremanually.183The situation almost a
quarter-century later is still similar: the transcription process is now fully
computerisedinmanyprojects,includingboththeEstoriaDigitalandthedigitalCPSF,
asisthecreationofconcordancesinprojectswhichincludethem.Furthermore,the
collationsystemitself iscomputerised,aswillbedescribed later,althoughthisstill
requires considerable human input to recognise significant from insignificant
differencesbetweenwitnessesinordertocompletethecreationofthecollation.
180PeterRobinson,‘NewDirectionsinCriticalEditing’,KathrynSutherland(ed),ElectronicText–InvestigationsinMethodandTheory,(Oxford:ClarendonPress,1997)pp.145-171,pp.154-155181READ,‘About’,RecognitionandEnrichmentofArchivalDocuments,https://read.transkribus.eu/about/[accessed14/11/2017]182JoséManuelFradejasRueda(@JMFradeRue),Tweet:‘Nadadelacodificación#TEIdeestefragmentofueintroducidoporserhumano.CómocodificarenTEIsinsaberTEI#7PartidasDigital’,dated20thOctober2017,https://twitter.com/JMFradeRue[accessed13/11/2017]183Greetham,TextualScholarship–AnIntroduction,pp.357-358
51
Collation tools and software such as Collate, CollateX and Juxta can collate more
manuscriptsmoreeasily thanwould feasiblybepossiblewithmanualcollation: for
example,Collatecancompareupto2000witnesses,184andthetoolgivesuserscontrol
of the collation process by allowing them to affect how the collated material is
visualised indigital format.185Bothprint anddigital editors canusedigital tools to
electronicallycreatecriticalapparatusesorstemmata,andcanpresenttheseinboth
printanddigitaleditions.However,inthecaseofworksforwhichthereareseveral
extantwitnesses to be studied, themost efficientway to visualise this data can be
digitally,giventhepossibilityforuserstoaffectthevisualisationinwayswhicharenot
possibleinprint.Parkerhasstatedthatcomparingtoomanywitnessesinaprinted
editioncreatestoomuch‘noise’andmakesthecollationallbutunusable,whilstwith
adigitalcollationtheusercanoftenselectwhichwitnessestocompare,reducingnoise,
andensuring the collation isbothuseful andusable.186In suchcases,on this issue,
digitaleditionshaveaclearadvantageovertheirprintcounterparts.
Digitalcollationtoolsworkbyrecognisingcorrespondingblocksof text indifferent
witnessesandgroupingthemtogether.Todothis,theblocksmustbelabelledcorrectly
inthevariouswitnessessothatthecollationtoolcanidentifycorrespondingblocks.
184ScholarlyDigitalEditions,ScholarlyDigitalEditions:AboutUs,(n.d.)<http://www.sd-editions.com/about/index.html>[accessed19/2/2016]185D.C.Parker,‘Electronicreligioustexts:theGospelofJohn’,LouBurnard,KatherineO’BrienO’KeeffeandJohnUnsworth(eds.)ElectronicTextualEditing(NewYork:ModernLanguageAssociation,2006)<http://www.tei-c.org/About/Archive_new/ETE/Preview/parker.xml>[accessed19/2/2016]186D.C.Parker,"TheNovumTestamentumGraecumEditioCriticaMaiorandtheUnitedBibleSocieties'GreekNewTestament:ASpecialistCriticalEditionandaHandEdition",UsersofScholarlyEditions:EditorialAnticipationsofReading,StudyingandConsulting,12thAnnualConferenceoftheEuropeanSocietyforTextualScholarship,(DeMontfortUniversity,19-21November2015)
52
Becauseofthisrequirementforidentificationandlabelling,itismorestraightforward
toelectronicallycollatetextsinwhichitisclearexactlywhatconstitutesablockoftext,
forexampleversetexts(whichcanbebrokendownintostanzasandlines)andBiblical
texts(whicharemadeupofversesandchapters).Itishardertolabelprosetexts,as
althoughprose canoftenbe separated into chapters,dividing the text into smaller,
manageably-collatablechunksrequiresaneditorialdecisiontobemadeastowhether
to divide the text into chunks of equal (or almost equal) length which may then
unnaturally separate semantic blocks, or whether to divide the text semantically,
resultinginblocksoftextwhichcanwidelydifferinlength.Thelatteristhedecision
takenby theEstoriaDigital,whichhasdivided the text intodivisionswhichaim to
followtheoriginalrubricsofthebasetext,andthenfurtherdividedthesedivisions
into anonymous blockswhichmirror the semantic blocks, taking into account the
linguisticstructureofthetext.187Since,asIwillexplainbelow,thetranscriptionsfor
twoofthefivewitnessesinmyeditionwerefirstpreparedfortheEstoriaDigital,this
is also true for my edition. It would be oversimplifying matters to say that each
anonymousblockisasentence,orthatanewanonymousblockstartswherethereisa
newpilcrow,but,generally,thiscanbeconsideredtrue.188Clearly,thedivisionoftext
inthiswayishighlysubjectiveandinnowayanexactsciencebutitissufficientforthe
requirementsoftheelectroniccollationtool.Sincethetextofvariouswitnessescan
differ, unavoidably it can be the case that whilst the base text is divided into
anonymous blocks which follow common sense, in other witnesses, where the
187Thiswastheintentionwhendividingthetext.Thereare,however,asmallnumberoferrorsinthedivisionoftext,althoughthesedonotadverselyaffectthefinalcollation.188TheEstoriadeEspannaDigitalProject,Whentoeditabnumbers,(VLEcourseforvolunteertranscribers)(2014)<https://canvas.bham.ac.uk/courses/15342/pages/when-to-edit-ab-numbers?module_item_id=363342>[accessed19/2/2016]
53
semanticsmaydiffer,orwheretherearelacunaeoradditions,thedivisionsmaynot
makesuchgoodsense.
1.2.7.3Morecontrolforusers
Leading on from the point about users of digital editions being able to affect the
visualisationoftoolsforanalysis,Shillingsburgarguesthatelectroniceditionsarenow
‘the only practical medium for major projects’ since only they can give ‘users the
practicalpowertoselect thetextor textsmostappropriate fortheirownworkand
interests’.189Bythishemeansthatdigitaleditions(ratherthanjustdigitisededitions,
animportantdistinction,worthemphasizing)oftenallowtheusertoviewmorethan
oneversionof theeditedtext inawaythat isnotusuallypossible inprinteditions.
Thereareexceptions,ofcourse,suchasGabler’sUlysses,whichjuxtaposesasynoptic
andareader’seditiononoppositepages,butingeneral,printeditionshaveusuallyhad
topresentjustoneversionoftheedition.Thissingleversion,Shillingsburggoesonto
state, either has to be ‘falsely presented as a universally usable text or honestly
presented as just one of several possible texts and inadequate for some critical
purposes’.190Evenwhenmultipleversionshavebeenprinted, representing the text
edited in different ways, it is more difficult for users to appreciate the editorial
decisionsthathaveledtothecreationofthedifferenteditionswhencomparingtwo
(ormore)codicesthanitwouldbeforuserstodosoinadigitalformat.OntheEstoria
189Shillingsburg,p.82190Shillingsburg,p.82
54
Digital,Wardhasstatedthepotentialformorethanoneeditedversionofthetextto
bepresented inparallel inasingleelectroniceditionasoneof thereasonswhyhis
editionwouldbedigital.191However,Bordalejo remindsus thatwecannothope to
containallpossiblelevelsofrepresentationofthetextinthesameedition,evenwith
digitaleditions:theeditorstillhastomakeeditorialdecisionsaboutwhatisincluded
andwhatisnot,192butasdigitaleditorswedohavemoreoptionsforrepresentations
oftextavailabletousthanourprintcounterpartsdo,andourforebearsdid.Beingable
topresentmorethanoneversionoftheeditedtext,asdigitaleditorsweareableto
giveourusersmorecontrolabouthowtheyusetheeditionthanprinteditorscanoffer
theirreaders.Thisisanotheradvantagetodigitaleditions.
1.2.7.4Includingorlinkingtomanuscriptimages
Robinsonhaswrittenofhowadvancesindigitalimaginghaveacceleratedthemove
towards digital scholarly editing as high-quality, full-colour digital images of
transcribed documents are no longer prohibitively expensive and can easily be
distributedviatheInternet,193andthattheseimagescanbelinkedtotheedition.194
Becauseofthis,inmanycases,usershaveaccesstothedigitalimagesusedtocreate
theedition,whichduetohighprintcosts,wasseldomthecaseinthepre-digitalera.
191Ward,‘EditingtheEstoria’,192192BárbaraBordalejo,“Whatismeantby‘editing’inthephrase‘socialediting’?”,Social,DigitalandScholarlyEditing,(UniversityofSaskatchewan,12thJuly2013),<https://www.academia.edu/4125893/What_is_Meant_by_Editing_in_the_Phrase_Social_Editing>[accessed2/3/2016]193Robinson,‘TheConceptoftheWorkintheDigitalAge’,24194Robinson‘NewDirections’,p.150
55
AsShillingsburgnotes,transcribershavetodecidewhichmarkstheyperceivetobe
meaningful,andthereforeincludedinthetranscriptions,andwhichmarkstoignore.
The inclusion or omission of certain marks will render the transcriptions, and
thereforetheedition,usefulforcertainusersandmisleadingforothers.Notallreaders
willagreeonwhichmarksshouldbeincludedandwhichomitted.195Itisbecauseof
this,thatwheretheirneedsrequirethemtodoso,andwheretheyareunabletoaccess
digital images of the original document, someusersmay opt to use single-witness
(documentary)editions,allowingthemtomakeasmanyoftheirowncriticaldecisions
aspossible,ratherthanrelyingonthosemadebyaneditor.However,Mary-JoKline
pointsoutthateventhemostconservativetranscriptionconsciouslyorunconsciously
‘silently incorporatesdozens of editorial judgments anddecisions’,196meaning that
even documentary editions containmany critical editorial decisions,whichmay or
maynotbemarked.197Becauseofthis,evenadocumentaryeditioncanneverhopeto
representtheoriginaldocumenttofulfilltheneedsofallusersoftheedition.Wherever
possible,itisofgreatbenefittosomeusers,particularlyscholars,thatdigitaleditions
can includeor link to imagesof theoriginaldocumentmuchmoreeasily thatprint
editions can. Other users, for example interested non-expertsmay simply find the
editionmore interestingorenjoyablewhen theyare able toalso see imagesof the
manuscript.Theseusersoftheeditionarenolessimportantthanscholarlyusers,and
wherepossible,theeditorshouldaimtofulfiltheneedsofaswidearangingaudience
ashecan.
195Shillingsburg,p.15196Mary-JoKline,AGuidetoDocumentaryEditing,2ndEdition,(BaltimoreandLondon:TheJohnsHopkinsUniversityPress,1998),p.104197Kline,p.104
56
AsRobinsonnotes,manyearlydigital editionsdidnot contain the critical editorial
decisions scholars had come to expect in print editions, and instead contained
everything, restricted only by the editor’s imagination and the limits of practical
possibility.198 Bordalejo points out that through including everything, early digital
editions were not critical editions but rather ‘digital surrogates’ of the original
documents.199Documentary,digitalfacsimile,and‘digitalsurrogate’editionssuchas
thesewhichaimtocontainasmuchinformationaspossible,andavoidingallhintof
criticismdohavetheirplaceinscholarship,perhapsonlyincaseswheretheimagesof
the original are restricted by their owners, or for manuscripts yet to be digitised
(although one wonders whether a digital editor would be likely tomake a digital
editionofanon-digitisedmanuscript–itwouldcertainlybemuchmoredifficult).That
said,criticaleditionsalsohavetheirplaceinscholarship.Forsomeusers,forexample
historical linguists, a critical editionwould be of little use; for others, for example
historians interested in the content of a manuscript rather than its linguistics, a
documentaryeditionwouldbeofequallylittleuse.Thisbringsusbacktotheincreased
usercontrolofdigitaleditions,whichcanallowuserstotailorthepresentationofthe
editiontotheirownspecificneeds.
As Parker states, when images of the original documents are accessible, editors’
decisionscanbemuchmoreeasilyscrutinised indigitaleditionsthan intheirprint
counterparts, 200 and more so now than ever before, given that there is an ever-
198Robinson,‘TowardsaTheoryofDigitalEditions’,106199Bordalejo,‘TheTextsWeSee’,65200Parker,‘ThroughaScreenDarkly’,404-409
57
increasingnumberofmanuscriptsbeingdigitisedandputontotheInternetforopen
use.Althoughpotentiallydauntingforaneditor,particularlyinthewakeoftheGabler-
Kiddaffair,theincreasedabilityofuserstoscrutiniseeditorialdecisionsinthisway,
and the increased likelihood of it happening is a boon for many edition-users,
particularly scholars. This cannot really be a negative for textual scholarshipmore
widely, since it is likely to result in increased transparency and thoughtfulness
regardingeditorialdecisions,andtoencouragereaderstoreadcritically.201However,
now that these high-quality digital images of original documents are much more
prevalent,onemayassumethatthosewhoseworkrequiresthemtolooksocloselyat
theseeditorialdecisionstosuchanextentwould,whereverpossible,useimagesofthe
originaldocumenttomaketheirowntranscriptions.
Theinclusionofhigh-qualitydigitalimagingofthedocumentbeingeditedcanaffect
thetypeoftranscriptioncarriedout:Robinsonhasgivenanin-depthexplanationof
his and Elizabeth Solopova’s use of a ‘graphemic’ transcription system for the
CanterburyTalesProject,whichincludedmarkingcertainfeaturesofscribalemphasis,
the heightsof initial capitals and similar aspects – the bibliographical code (touse
McGann’s term, asRobinsondoes) – butwhich stopped short of fullpalaeographic
transcription,basedonreflectionofwhatthetranscriptionswouldbeusedforandby
whom.202A similar approach has been taken by theEstoriaDigital, since,with the
exceptionofE1 andE2, the imagesof thewitnesses thathavebeen transcribedare
201PeterRobinson,‘TheCanterburyTalesandOtherMedievalTexts’,LouBurnard,KatherineO’BrienO’KeeffeandJohnUnsworth(eds.)ElectronicTextualEditing(NewYork:ModernLanguageAssociation,2006)<http://www.tei-c.org/About/Archive_new/ETE/Preview/robinson.xml>[accessed19/2/2016]202Robinson‘TheCanterburyTalesandOtherMedievalTexts’
58
availableonline.ThesameistrueofthedigitalCPSF.Thismeansthatthatuserswho
wishtoviewin-depthpalaeographicalfeaturesofthemanuscriptwillbeabletoview
themanuscriptimages,eitherintheeditionorhyperlinkedtotheirrespectivelibrary
websites.Meanwhile, thoseviewing the transcriptionsor theedited textsaremore
likely to be interested in other features of the text, including orthographic and
semantic aspects. In short, most users are likely to be either more interested in
material aspects (sowill view the images) or semantic questions (sowill view the
transcriptionortheedition).Adigitaleditionattemptstocaterforboth.
1.2.7.5Digitalimagesvs.originalmanuscripts
As touched on above, scholars such as Parker,203Robinson204andMcGann205have
arguedthatadvancesindigitalimagingandthepossibilityofusingqualityimagesof
manuscriptswhencreatingdigitaleditionsandincludingtheseintheeditionitselfhas
beenkeyintheshiftfromprinttodigitaleditions,indemocratisingthepreparationof
theedition,asfarasthisispossible,andinchanginghowtheeditionisused.Itisoften
possibletozoominonmanyoftheseimagestoseethedocumentlargerthanitisin
reality,whichcanbebeneficialwhentranscribingandediting.Scholarsarealsoable
to‘see’aspectsofthemanuscriptusingdigitaltoolsthatarenotvisiblewithoutthem,
forexamplebychangingthecontrastof the imagetorevealaspectsofthetext that
cannot otherwise be easily seen. Unlike when an edition is made from original
203Parker,‘ThroughaScreenDarkly’204Robinson,‘WhereWeAreWithElectronicScholarlyEditions’205McGann,‘TheRationaleofHyperText’
59
documents,however, it isnotpossible tousetechniquessuchasshiningultraviolet
lightondigitisedimagestoallowscholarstoseemarksnotimmediatelyvisibletothe
nakedeye.Notbeingabletousesuchtechniquesmeansthatthemarksvisibleinthe
digital image are all we are ever going to see when working from that image.
Furthermore,notallofthedigitalimagesusedtocreateeditionsarehighqualityorin
colour:currently,somedocumentsareavailableindigitisedformonlyasimagesofold
microfilms,andonlyinblackandwhite.Whilsttheuseofsuchlowerqualityimages
stillbringswithitmanyoftheotherbenefitsofworkingusingdigitalimagesrather
thantheoriginals,asdescribedabove,itisnotpossibletoaccuratelytranscribewhat
one cannotsee in the image,meaningthat it isoftennecessary tovisit theoriginal
document,wherepossible,toresolvesomeofthetranscriptionqueriescreatedwhen
workingfromtheselowerqualityimages.
1.2.7.6Financialaspects
Robinson argues that the complexities of the TEI and the technical requirements
neededtocreateadigitaledition,intermsofbothhardwareandsoftware,havemade
itmoredifficulttocreateadigitaleditionthanitwastocreateaprint-basededitionin
thepre-digitalera.206Whathasimprovedforwould-beeditors,however,aresomeof
thefinancialcostsinvolvedincreatingadigitaledition.AsPriceexplains:
Becausecolorimagesareprohibitivelyexpensiveformostbookpublications,scholarscanusuallyhopetohaveonlyafewblackandwhiteillustrationsinabook.Inanelectronicedition,however,wecanincludeasmanyhigh-resolution
206Robinson,‘SomePrinciples’,p.15
60
colorimagesascanbeprocured,assumingadequateserverspaceforstorageanddelivery,andassumingsufficientstafftocarryoutthelaboriousprocessofscanningorphotographingmaterialsandmakingthemavailabletousers.[…]They [scholars] can include audio and video clips, high-quality colorreproductionsofartworks,andinteractivemaps.207
As explained above, including images of the documents transcribed to create the
edition,orotheroriginalmaterial, fundamentally changes the relationshipbetween
theuserandthematerialbeingstudied,aswellasaffectinghowitcanbestudied.Kline
givesafurtherexampleofhowdigitallyrepresentinganeditedtextcanalloweditors
more freedombystatingthatstandardisingactivities for thesakeofreducingprint
costs,suchasloweringsuperscriptletters,isnotrequiredinelectroniceditions.She
explainsthatinthisway,thetranscriptionsanddiplomaticeditionscanpresentsome
aspectsofthehandwrittensourcesinawaythatlookmoresimilartohowtheyappear
in thedocumentbeingedited than someprint editionsareable to.208Sincedigital
editions can comprise more than one version of the text, editors are at liberty to
provideamorediplomaticeditionwith,forexample,superscriptlettersappearingas
superscripts, and a general-reader’s edition with the superscripts lowered and
expandedwhererequired,but the fundamentaldifferencehere is thatsuchchoices
wouldbebasedoneditorialdecisionsratherthanasamethodofcostreduction.
Robinson gives a stark warning for makers of digital editions when the primary
sponsorisafundingagency.Thereisariskinvolved,heargues,whenthisisthecase,
asitcanskewthemotivationsbehindtheeditionfromattemptingtomeettheneeds
ofuserstosatisfyingthefunder’sdemands.Thiscanleadtotoomany(inRobinson’s
207Price,para.4208Kline,p.105
61
view)document-basededitionsandofeditionsforwhomtheaudienceisill-defined,
adverselyaffectingthechoicesmadebytheeditorandbyextensionthequalityofthe
edition.Robinsonadvisesthateditorsshouldmaketheireditionswiththeirusersin
mind rather than to satisfy their funders or following their own personal
preferences.209This is not entirely the same argument aswhere, in print editions,
editorial decisions were swayed by the requirements of the publishing house, for
example to reduce costs, since such decisions were made on clear practical
foundations:theusefulnessofaneditionwhichwasprohibitivelyexpensiveformost
scholars and institutions due to high print costs would have been jeopardised.
Robinson’sargument,however,isdifferentfromthis,since,tocontinuewiththesame
example,itcoststhesametodisplayaletterassuperscriptasitdoestodisplayitin
thestandardpositioning,andcurrenttechnologymeansitisnomoredifficulttoeither
transcribeordisplay lettersassuperscript,soin thisrespect thepractical issuesof
print are irrelevant in digital editions; Robinson is arguing that editorial decisions
shouldbebasedonscholarlymotivations,withtherequirementsoftheaudiencein
mind,ratherthanthepersonalinclinationsoftheeditororthoseofthefundingbody.
Thisis,ofcourse,anethicalissue,andfundingbodiesarestillamajorsourceoffinance
forscholarlyeditingprojects.NeitherInorRobinsonamarguingforaworldwhere
editions are all self-funded, since this would bring with it its own host of issues
regardingdecisionsmadetoone’sownpersonalwont,orcrowd-funded,sinceeditions
of lessmainstreamorwidespread fame andpopularitymay then not be produced.
Rather,editorsmustensuretheycanjustifytheireditorialjudgementsbasedonsolid
209Robinson‘SomePrinciples’,p.2
62
scholarlytheoreticalgroundsratherthanpersonalpreference,orthoseoftheirfunder,
sincethefinanciallimitationsofdisplayingtextinprinteditionsisoftennotanissue
digitally.
1.2.7.7Storageissues
Intheafore-citedquotation,KennethPricetouchesonanextremelyimportantissue
within digital textual scholarshipwhen hementions the requirement for adequate
serverspace.Whilstprinteditionsexistastraditionalcodiceswhichrequirephysical
storagespace,digitaleditionsexistasdatawhichcanbelostifthereisnotadequate
server space allocated for it. As remarked by Trovato, one of the advantages of
electroniceditionsis‘thelowcostofdigitaldataarchiving…comparedtotherelatively
highproductionandstoragecostsofthepaperbooks’.210However,unliketextsstored
inbook-form,asDeegannotes,unlesselectronicdataiskeptinafuture-proofformat,
there is the strong possibility that the data of electronic editions could become
inaccessibleasthesoftwarethatcreateditandthehardwarewhichcanreaditbecome
obsolete.211OneonlyhastothinkoftheboxesofVHStapesthatfillgarages,basements
andattics,which inmanyhomescannownotbewatchedduetothe lackof aVHS
player, to see this same issue in a domestic context. Deegan gives four options to
potentiallyovercomethesustainability issue,allofwhichhavepracticaldrawbacks
andfinancialimplications,andnoneofwhichisclearlybetterthantheotherthree:to
210Trovato,p.181211Deegan,para.13
63
reformatthedata,whichmayhavetobedonemanytimesovertheyears;topreserve
otherwiseobsoletesoftwareandhardware inordertoaccessthematerial; tobuild
programmesordeviceswhichcanreadthematerial;andforustopreservethedataas
bestwecan,andtoleavetheissueforfuturescholarstoworkout.212Thereisanirony
intheideathatinordertoaccess,studyandinmanycasespreserveoldtexts,weare
creatingelectroniceditions,thedatabehindwhich,unlessweconsciouslyensurethey
arenot,maybeinaccessibleingenerationstocome.Wardhasbloggedthatitiswith
this issue inmindthatwe,as ‘custodians’ofsuchdocuments,haveadutyto future
scholarstopreservethedocumentsthemselvesandnotmerelyelectronicversionsof
the texts containedwithin them.213Some of theEstoria manuscripts in theEstoria
Digital are over seven centuries old; ifwe donot preserve the original, canwe be
absolutelysurethatscholarsinsevenhundredyearswillbeabletoaccessourdata?214
No–wecannot.Evenwithconsiderablemeasurestakentoensuresustainabilityofthe
dataweareproducing,westillhavetopreservetheoriginaldocuments,andindoing
sowearealsopreservingthepricelesshumanconnectionbetweenallthosewhohave
created,workedonorstudiedthedocumentduringitslife.215Weare,afterall,working
indigitalhumanities.
212Deegan,para.13213AengusWard,‘ManuscriptsasArtefacts’,(3/11/2015),TheEstoriadeEspannaDigitalProjectblog,<http://estoria.bham.ac.uk/blog/?p=636>[accessed28/2/2016]214PollyDuxfield,‘OriginalManuscriptsorDigitalEditions?ThatistheQuestion.’(23/10/2015),TheEstoriadeEspannaDigitalProjectblog,<http://estoria.bham.ac.uk/blog/?p=613>[accessed28/2/2016]215Ward,‘ManuscriptsasArtefacts’
64
1.2.7.8Providingastableedition
Whenmakingadigitaledition,whatisreallybeingcreatedisdata.Sincethereisno
dateatwhichthedatahastobe‘completed’asthereisforprintpublication,intheory
thedataofanelectroniceditioncouldbetweakedindefinitely,evenaftertheeditionis
launched, to remove transcription errors, typographical errors, tagging
inconsistenciesand tobring theeditionup todateasnewresearchshedsdifferent
lightsonthetextovertime.Printeditionscanalsobeupdatedbyprintingasecondor
subsequentedition(s),butbytheirnature,digitaleditionscanbechangedmuchmore
easily.However,justbecausetheycanbetweakedindefinitelydoesnotmeantosay
theyshouldbe.Editorsofdigitaleditions,oncelaunched,havetwopossiblepathsto
takewiththeirdata,andtheirchoiceshouldbemakecleartousersoftheedition:the
firstistoleavethedataasitis,withtheeditionfrozenatthepointatwhichtheedition
waslaunched,justasaprintpublicationisfrozenonthedayitisprinted.Ifthedatais
madeavailabletofuturescholarsthereisalwaysthepossibilitythatatagivenpointin
thefuturethey(oreventhesamescholars)mayrevisitthedataandmakechanges,just
aseditorsmay re-edit textswhichhavepreviouslybeen edited.The secondoption
availabletoeditorsistomakechangestothedatawhenevertheydeemitnecessary
andpossible,intermsofthetechnologyandexpertiseavailable.Thisensuresthatthe
versionoftheeditiononthewebsiteisasup-to-dateaspossibleinawaythatfrozen
editionscannotbe.216However,Deeganarguesthatdespitethepossibilitytore-editor
re-touch electronic editions, for the sake of users who ‘may not understand what
216ZethGreen,ConversationwithPollyDuxfield,(7/1/2016)
65
changes have been made’, and librarians who need to ‘deliver and preserve’ the
material,digitaleditorsmustprovideastabletext,thatistosayonewhichis‘fixedat
someparticularpointintimeinsomeknownstate,andthennotchangedlaterwithout
those changes being explicitly recorded’.217 Linked to this issue, she notes, is the
requirementforcitationstobestable,sothatlaterscholarscanfollowareferenceand
reach a stable referent. 218 It is for the reason of stable referents, alongside the
likelihoodoftheUniformResourceLocators(URLs)beingtoolongforalaterscholar
to reliably retype and reach the original referent, that theOnline Froissart Project,
aboutwhichmorewillbewrittenlater,advisesuserstomakecitationsaccordingto
the following model, where the general bibliographical reference of the particular
manuscriptisnoted,inadditiontotheURLcitation:219
‘NewYork,MorganLibrary,MSM.804’,ed.RobSanderson,inTheOnlineFroissart,ed.ByPeterAinsworthandGodfriedCroenen,version1.5(Sheffield:HRIOnline,2013),<http://www.hrionline.ac.uk/onlinefroissart>[accessed30December2013],fol.29r
Ifeditionsaretweakedandchangesaremade,citationswillbecomeunstable,asmay
URLs.
217Deegan,para9218Deegan,para.8219AinsworthandCroenen,‘CitingThisResource’,TheOnlineFroissart,version1.5<http://www.hrionline.ac.uk/onlinefroissart/apparatus.jsp?type=context&context=citing_this_resource>[accessed28/02/2016]
66
1.2.7.9 Preparing an edition over the Internet and the opportunities for
collaboration
Manyof the tasks required toprepareadigital editionarenowcarriedoutvia the
Internet.Thisisconvenientfortranscribersandeditors,whomayormaynotbethe
sameperson, although it is likely that in larger projects theywill not be the same
person.Forexample,ateamoftranscribers,somepaid,somevolunteers,preparedthe
transcriptions for the Estoria Digital, while the general editor was Aengus Ward.
Contrastingly,asadoctoralthesis,andthereforeasmallerproject,themajority–but
notall–ofthetranscriptionsforthedigitalCPSFwereproducedbyme,andIwasalso
the general editor of this edition. Preparing a digital edition via the Internet also
increasestheaccessibilityofthetaskoftranscription,removingtherequirementfor
transcriptionstotakeplaceattheholding-placeofthedocumentsusedtocreatethe
edition.220Sincesomeofthetasksinvolvedcanbecarriedoutonline,thecreationofa
digitaleditionnaturallylendsitselffarmoreeasilytocollaborationthanprinteditions
are able to do. As Shillingsburg notes, collaboration isoften essential in creating a
digitaledition,sincefewtextualscholarshavethecomputerexpertiseneededtocarry
out the functions required to bring an electronic scholarly edition from
conceptualisationtofruition.221Theteamoftranscribers,editorsandtechnicalofficers
behindthepreparationofadigitaleditionarenowablecollaboratewhilstworkingin
geographicallydistinctplaces.Whenthisisthecase,however,toensureconsistency,
it is necessary that all parties areworking towards the same goal, for example, all
220Robinson,‘WhereWeAreWithElectronicScholarlyEditions’221Shillingsburg,p.94
67
transcribers should be working to the same transcription guidelines, and
communicationbetweenteam-membersshouldtakeplaceoftensothatanyqueries
can be raised and wherever possible, resolved in a timely manner. This appears
straightforward, butmy personal experience has shown that in reality this can be
difficulttoachieveinthecontextofadigitalprojectwheretobeworkingontheproject
requires only an Internet connection, so team-members may be working in
geographically distant places fromone-another, andwhere scholarsmay have ‘day
jobs’outsidetheproject,suchasteachingorotherroles.
DigitaleditingprojectssometimesnowmakeuseofcollaborationviatheInternetin
theformofcrowdsourcedtranscriptions,wherevolunteertranscriberscarryoutsome
(or all) of the transcriptions required for the edition. In many cases, the use of
volunteerscanremoveagreatdealofthelaboriousdrudgeryinvolvedincreatingthe
original transcriptions to be used in the preparation of the edition. However, it is
importanttorealisethatcrowdsourcedtranscribersarenoteditors:theirtaskisnot
toedit,buttotranscribe.Ofcourse,theverynatureoftranscribingrequiresacertain
levelofinterpretation,whichonecouldargueisatypeofediting,butthishasalways
beenthecasewheneverthetranscriptionsarenotcarriedoutbytheprincipaleditor
ofanedition,whetherprintorelectronic.Bordalejoarguesthat‘inordertoeditatext,
onehastospendalargeproportionoftimestudyingdocuments,theirtransmission,
theirvariants,andthewayinwhichtheyrelatetoeachother’.Shearguesthatthisis
likelytobedonebyasingleresearcher,orasmallgroupofscholars–theeditor(s)of
the edition. Social toolsmay allow large groups to share ideas, knowledge and to
collaboratewitheachotherforthebackgroundoftheedition,butnotintheactualtask
68
of editing: it is unlikely that the latter will be carried out by crowdsourcers. 222
Furthermore, the expertise of experienced scholars is necessary even in the
‘democratised’ environment of the Internet, where, as Dino Buzzetti and Jerome
McGannhave stated, ‘tares are rampant among thewheat’:223tomaintain rigorous
academicstandardsandthereforetheintegrityandqualityofanedition,werequire
editorialdecisionstobetakenbyhighly-trainedscholarsandnotamateurs,however
enthusiastic. It is for this reason that for the Estoria Digital, all crowdsourced
transcriptions were carefully checked by project staff to ensure consistency and
quality,andvolunteerswereaskedtoworktocleartranscriptionguidelinesinorder
thattheiroriginaltranscriptionsareasconservativeaspossible.Iwillreturntothe
issueofcrowdsourcinginmoredepthbelow.
1.2.7.10Copyrightandattributionofwork
Ofcourse,collaborationbringswithitissuesofcopyrightandofattributionofwork.
As Robinson has stated in his frank history of his transcription platform Textual
Communities,collaborationondigitalprojectsisoftenbetweenatextualexpertanda
technical expert, and as such, attribution of work is usually uncomplicated and
uncontentious.224However,hegoesontodescribeanexampleofwhere intellectual
222Bordalejo,‘Whatismeantby‘editing’?’p.4223DinoBuzzettiandJeromeMcGann,‘CriticalEditinginaDigitalHorizon’,LouBurnard,KatherineO’BrienO’KeeffeandJohnUnsworth(eds.)ElectronicTextualEditing(NewYork:ModernLanguageAssociation,2006)<http://www.tei-c.org/About/Archive_new/ETE/Preview/mcgann.xml>[accessed2/3/2016]224TextualCommunitiesisacollaborativeeditingenvironment.FundingfortheinitiativecamefromtheUniversityofSaskatchewan(2010-2011),theCanadaFoundationforInnovation(2010-2014),andtheCanadianSocialSciencesandHumanitiesResearchCouncil(2014-stillcurrentattimeofwriting
69
property law has caused difficulties for those who have worked for many years
transcribingandeditingtexts:hewritesofhisownwork,alongsidethecollaboration
ofothersoverseveralyearsontheCanterburyTalesproject,whichculminated ina
dispute over the level of acknowledgement of work of some of the collaborators,
resultinginabanonthepublicationofanyofthematerialsproducedattheuniversity
ofthoseontheopposingsidetoRobinsoninthedispute.225Ofcourse,collaborationis
notpurelyaquestionfordigitaleditions,asprinteditionsareoftentheworkofgroups
oftranscribersandeditorsworkingtogether,buttheextremelycollaborativenature
of thepreparationofdigitaleditionscanmakethemparticularlyproneto issuesof
attribution ofwork.Digital editors should be aware of thiswhenpreparing digital
editions,andshouldtakestepstoavoidsuchproblems.
1.2.7.11Makingthetoolsfitthejob(andnotviceversa)
Thereisalsothedangerwhenworkingwithinthecapacityofdigitaltools(andindeed
withinthetechnicalcapacityoftheeditor)thatonemakesthejobfitthetoolsavailable,
ratherthanusingtoolsthatfullysuittheeditor’srequirements,226ortherequirements
to produce an edition that fulfils as many as possible of the needs of the target
audiences.Of course, the samecouldbe saidofmanyactivities requiring specialist
(June2018)).In‘SomePrinciples’,RobinsonstatesthatthebasicoutlineforTextualCommunitieswashis,withadvicefromFedericoMeschiniandZethGreen.ThechiefprogrammerfortheprojectisXiaohanZhang.OthermembersoftheteamareErinSzigalyandTroyGriffitts.SeeRobinson,‘SomePrinciples’,p.1,p.10,andPeterRobinson,‘FirstTextualCommunitiesWorkshop’,TextualCommunities,http://www.textualcommunities.usask.ca/web/textual-community/blog[accessed08/06/2018].225PeterRobinson,TheBackgroundtotheTextualCommunitiesProject226Robinson,‘SomePrinciples’,p.2
70
toolsortechniques,soisnotrestrictedtothecaseofthedigitaltextualscholarship,but
itcanbeaparticularissueforhumanitiesscholars,manyofwhomtraditionallydonot
naturallytendtowardscomputingexpertise.Ofcourse,thismaychangesomewhat,as
subsequentgenerationsbecometextualeditors,andweseethefirst ‘digitalnatives’
become general editors of scholarly editions. Robinson argues that the leaders in
digitaleditinghavetosomeextentbeenspecialistsinthedigitaltechniquesrequired
tobringtheeditiontotechnicalfruition,ratherthanexpertsinthetextsthemselves.227
Toattempttoclosethisgapbetweentextualeditorswhoarespecialistsinthetext(s)
beingeditedbutmaylacktechnicalexpertiseincomputersystemsandencoding,and
thoseaufaitwiththetechnicalrequirementsofanelectroniceditionbutlackspecialist
knowledge of the text, Robinson and a team, mostly based at the University of
Saskatchewan are in the process of developing Textual Communities, the
aforementionedonlinetranscriptionsystemdesignedtoprovidetextualscholarsand
editorswiththecomputingsupporttheyrequiretocreateadigitaledition.228
227Robinson,‘SomePrinciples’,p.2228Robinson,‘SomePrinciples’p.10
!
! ^D!
!
6;G<C9! R2! 45(%%+36,)! ,-! -IBC?! ,-!23*1"%'( -.( 23)'$$'! i! X@OT! c^EcY! &'()='#! )6(,216! )('+35(<&)<,+! ,+!@.A*+',(!1BB+$%*%.3I!O,)%!)6')!)6%!7<3)!,-!)('+35(<"%(3!=6,!6'?%!=,(H%/!,+!)6<3!-,7<,!<3!?<3<"7%!<+!)6%!/(,&J/,=+!",GI!
!
!
F6%!23*1"%'(C%F%*',!6'3!23%/!@.A*+',(!1BB+$%*%.3!<+!3,*%!'3&%5)3!,-!)6%!&(%&'(')<,+!
,-!<)3!/<1<)'7!%/<)<,+8!'3!6'?%!M!<+!&(%&'(<+1!)6%!/<1<)'7!!9/0I!@.A*+',(!1BB+$%*%.3!6'3!
<)3! "%+%-<)3! <+! )6')! <)! (%*,?%3 3,*%! ,-! )6%! )%56+<5'7! 62(/7%3! )6')! =,27/J"%! /<1<)'7!
%/<),(3!*'#!-<+/!/'2+)<+18!'77,=3!)%'*3!,-!356,7'(3!),!=,(H!),1%)6%(!,+!'!*'+235(<&)!
-,(! )('+35(<&)<,+! =<)6,2)! /2&7<5')<+1! =,(H8! '+/! ,+%! 5'+! %'3<7#! =,(H! ,2)! =6,! 6'3!
5,77'",(')%/!,+!'+#!1<?%+! )('+35(<&)<,+8!"2)! <)!/,%3! 3)<77! (%U2<(%!'! 7%?%7!,-! )%56+<5'7!
%G&%()<3%!),!&(%&'(%!)6%!*'+235(<&)!<*'1%3!-,(!2&7,'/8!'+/!)6%!"'3%!)%G)8!=6%(%!,+%!<3!
"%<+1!23%/I!M)!'73,!/,%3!+,)!32&&,()!-%')2(%3!3256!'3!17,"'7!-<+/J'+/J(%&7'5%!,-!)%G)!)6')!
7,=%(J)%56! )%G)2'7! %/<)<+1! &(,1('**%3! /,! X3256! '3! @.A*_"'$F,."YI! M)! *'#! "%! ,-!
<+)%(%3)! ),! )6%! (%'/%(! ),! +,)%! )6')8! /%3&<)%! )6(%%! #%'(3! ,-! %G&%(<%+5%!=<)6!@.A*+',(
!1BB+$%*%.3!'3!&'()!,-!)6%!23*1"%'(C%F%*',8!=6%+!)('+35(<"<+1!)6%!)6(%%!=<)+%33%3!,-!)6%!
!9/0!+,)!<+572/%/!<+!)6%!23*1"%'(C%F%*',8!'+/!=6<56!'(%!/<35233%/!<+!*,(%!/%&)6!"%7,=8!
72
IdidnotuseTextualCommunities.Thisdecisionwasmadebecauseoftheextrasteps
involvedinuploadingtheimagesofthemanuscriptasseparateimagesforeachfolio,
and the requirement to identify the base text for each folio image prior to
transcriptions:Ifounditfareasiertotranscribefromtheimagesofthemanuscriptas
onefile,straighttoTextWrangler.
1.2.7.12Transcribingfromimagesandthelilypadeffect
Whendigitallyeditingatextusingdigitisedimagesoftheoriginaldocument,imagesof
thewholemanuscriptmayappearinonefile.Inothercases,animageofeachpageis
sometimesstoredasaseparatefile.Indocumentscontainingmorethanonepagethere
couldbe several, or evenmanydigital imageswhich togethermakeup theoriginal
document.Forexample,thisisthecasewithTextualCommunities,whereonlyonefolio
imageisshownatatime.Becauseofthis,thereisthedangerthateachtranscribermay
neverconceptualisethedocumentasawhole,sincethefocusisneveronmorethan
one page at a time. Even when following strict and comprehensive transcription
guidelines,transcribershavetomakedecisionsaboutthemeaningsofthemarksthey
are interpreting when transcribing. 229 Given that the edition is based on the
transcriptions,thedecisionsmadewhentranscribingwillaffecttheeditionitself.In
collaborative projects, it is usual that the initial transcriptions are checked several
times, but the checking itself can be affected by the decisions taken by the initial
229Robinson,‘TowardsaTheoryofDigitalEditions’,114
73
transcriber.230Scholarsaredividedonwhetherthefocusofadigitaleditionshouldbe
document-orwork-based–editorssuchasGablerandPierazzoarguefordocument-
basededitions,whereasRobinsonandMcGann,inwhosecamponthisissueIwould
alsoplacemyself,arguethattheeditormustlookmorewidelythanjustthedocument,
takingintoaccountinformationwhichisnotpresentinsingledocumentsofthework
whenanymorethanonedocumentoftheworksurvives,231However,havingsaidthat,
it ishighlyunlikely thatanyscholarwouldadvocatethateditionsbemadewithout
carefullyconsideringalloftheextantpagesinthedocument,howtheyrelatetoone
another,andhowourunderstandingofthemeaningfulmarksinthesepagescanbe
affectedoncewehavestudiedasignificantproportionofthedocument,andnotjust
smallsectionsofit,asifeachpagewerealilypad,unconnectedandunaffectedbythe
other lily pads in the pond. To avoid this, transcribers and editors must make a
conscious effort to studymore than one page at a time, to be aware that the page
imagesarestoredseparately,butallformpartofthesamedocument,andbeprepared
toreturntotranscriptionsifrequired.Asimilarphenomenonistrueofusersofdigital
editions: for users, aswell as transcribers, it ismore difficult to conceptualise the
originaldocumentwhenusingadigitaleditionthanaprintedition.Itisforthisreason
thatAlbertoBlecuaarguesthateditorsshouldstill try toseetheoriginalwitnesses
beingedited:‘ciertosdetallesdelalecturay,sobretodo,laconstruccióndeloscódices
y ediciones sólo se pueden apreciar físicamente’. 232 This, however, is not always
230Forexample,withintheEstoriadeEspannaDigitalprojectourunwrittenpolicyforquestionableword-spacing,giventheinconsistentnatureofmedievalword-spacing,istofollowthedecisionoftheinitialtranscriber,unlessthesubsequenttranscriberissurewithoutdoubtthattheinitialtranscriberhasmadeamistake.ThispolicywassuggestedbyBárbaraBordalejo.231Robinson,‘TowardsaTheoryofDigitalEditions’232Blecua,Manualdecríticatextual,p.37
74
possible.RobinsonpointsoutthatwithinafewmonthsofthedaytheBritishLibrary
enabledfreepublicaccesstotheimagesofthewholeoftheCodexSinaiticustheywere
seenbyoveramillionpeople.InthequartercenturypriortothistheBritishLibrary
had allowed only four scholars to see the whole manuscript. 233 Edwards rightly
remarks that this is because of the particular importance, age, and fragility of the
manuscript, but that there are fewmanuscripts in quite this ‘justifiably restricted
category’.234
1.2.7.13Visualisationofdata
McGannarguesthatdigitaleditionsaremuchbetterat‘simulating…bibliographical
and socio-textualphenomena’ thancodex-basededitionsare, as they canpresenta
visualisationofeachpagethatismoresimilartothatoftheoriginaldocument,and
canthereforebettersimulatetheinformationotherthanjustthewordsofthetextof
the original. 235 Similarly, Robinson has outlined some of the possibilities of
visualisationindigitaleditionsnotavailabletoeditorsofcodex-basededitions.236Itis
importanttorealise,however,thatjustasthephysicalorganisationoftheprintedpage
limitstheusageoftheprintedition,theorganisationofthetextonascreenaffectsthe
usage of the digital edition. In both print and digital editions, the way we usually
presenttextfollowsthelinearpatternofitspresentationintheediteddocuments.This
233Robinson,‘TheDigitalRevolutioninScholarlyEditing’,p.182234Edwards,para.8235JeromeMcGann,‘FromTexttoWork:DigitalToolsandtheEmergenceoftheSocialText’,Variants,4(2005)225-240,239236Robinson,‘WhereWeAreWithElectronicScholarlyEditions’,para.10
75
is,afterall,howtheywereoriginallydesignedtoberead.However,studyingthetext
inanon-linearway,forexampleusingconcordancesearches,aswewillseeinChapter
Two, or by comparing more than one version of corresponding text in different
witnesses,canunlockinformationwithinthetext(s)thatisnotalwaysnoticeableon
thesurfaceorwhenreadingtextsinalinearfashion.Digitaleditionslendthemselves
muchmorethanprinteditionsdotothepossibilityofnon-linearreadings,although
thisisdependentonthetoolsprovidedbyeditorstousersoftheedition,andtheway
inwhichtheeditedtextisbothpreparedandpresented.Afullyregularisedversion
cannotbeusedforanin-depthconcordancestudyoforthographicchange,forexample.
As digital editors we are not bound to reproduce themise-en-page of the original
document,or to simulate thevisualisationof aprint edition, any further thanearly
printers were bound to simulate the visualisation of previous handwritten
manuscripts.Thereisanoverlappinghierarchywithindocuments,wherethephysical
boundaries of the document are hierarchised over textual boundaries for practical
reasons.Printeditorsarealsoboundbysimilarissues.Additionally,aprinteditioncan
lend itselfnaturally tomirroring theway inwhich the texthasbeendivided in the
originaldocument(s)beingeditedaccording to thesephysicalmarkers, rather than
textualmarkers.Digitaleditorsarenotlimitedbysuchphysicalboundariesintheway
thatprinteditorsare,butmanyeditionstodatestillaimtosimulatethecodex,justas
earlyprintedbooks first simulatedhandwrittenmanuscripts.Wedo,however, find
ourselves facedwith issues in the encoding of such overlapping hierarchies; I will
returntothispointlater.IfaneditorfollowsMcGannandMcKenzieandtheirviewsof
the importanceofbibliographical codes to theunderstandingof a text, it stands to
76
reasonthatshemaywishtoreproduceasmanyoftheseaspossibleinheredition.One
shouldquestion,however,theextenttowhichthisisnecessary,inthecaseofdigital
editionswherehighqualityimagesofthemanuscriptarefreelyavailableforstudyand
scrutinybyusersoftheedition,particularlysince,evenwiththebestofintentions,a
digitalrepresentationofsuchcodeswithinaneditioncouldneverreproducethesein
anywherenearasmuchdetailasadigitalimageoftheoriginaldocument.
A furtheraspectof visualisationwithindigital editions is thatof thepresentational
codesusedwithinthetranscriptionsandtextoftheeditionsthemselves.Providingthe
editorialteamhasthecomputerexpertisetomakeitso,thedigitaleditorcanpresent
thedatainanywayheseesfit,andisnotrestrictedbytheeditorialconventionsofany
publishinghouse,asprinteditorsmaybe.Forexample, inadigitaleditionwhich is
expandingabbreviationmarks,theexpandedletterscouldfollowprintconventionand
berepresentedinitalics,althoughalternativelytheycouldberepresenteddifferently
–inadifferentcolourfont,underlined,theexpansioncouldappearuponmousingover
theabbreviationmark,oritcouldbeshowninmanyotherpossibleways.Thequestion
is,however,whyadigitaleditorwouldchoosetomoveawayfromconvention:ifthe
new code would significantly change or improve the outcome and therefore the
usabilityoftheeditionthentheargumenttobreakwithconventionisstrong;if,onthe
other hand, the editor is breaking with convention purely for the sake of defying
conventiontheargumentisweakened.PaulSpencehasquestionedtheextendeduse
ofitalicsforalleditorialinterventionindigitaleditions,asisthenorminprinteditions,
whenmanyother codesareavailable to thedigital editoratno increasedcost, the
meaningsofwhich,unlikeitalicsusedforseveralpurposes,canbedifferentiatedby
77
machines.237TotaketheexampleoftheEstoriaDigital,whichdoesnotrelyontheuse
ofitalicsforalleditorialintervention,expandedtextinabbreviatedwordsappearsin
grey(forblackink)andlightred(forrubrics),andincasesofscribalemendationthe
original reading is shown in the edition in teal text, with other readings visible in
mouse-over boxes. In print, conventionally both of these aspects would appear in
italics,andtheonuswouldbeonthereadertodiscerntheeditorialinterventionthat
hastakenplace.Someprinteditions,however,douseasystemofcodestomakeclear
to thereaderwhateditorial interventionhastakenplace,andsomeeditionscanbe
heavilycodedinthisway:McGannhasstatedthattounderstandthelargenumberof
diacriticsinGabler’sUlyssesusedascodesarea‘grammar’whichonemustlearnto
‘read’.238Thereis,ofcourse,asalways,alinetobetroddenbyeditors,betweengiving
edition users enough information as to ensure an edition not meant as purely a
reader’seditionisusefulforotherscholars,andprovidingthemwithsomuchthatthe
editionbecomesdifficulttoread.
1.2.8Crowdsourcing
Touched upon above is the concept that digital editions can be produced
collaboratively.Robinsonhaswrittenof(andquestioned)the‘obviousfitbetweenthe
applicationof‘socialmedia’technologiestothemakingofscholarlyeditionsindigital
237PaulSpence,‘Sieteretosdeedicióndigitalparalasfuentesdocumentales’,ScriptumDigital,Vol.3(2014)153-181,156238JeromeMcGann,‘“Ulysses”asaPostmodernText:TheGablerEdition’,Criticism21:3,(Summer1985),283-305,291
78
form and the markedly collaborative nature of the typical digital humanities
project’.239Elsewhere he has argued that the impact on textual scholarship of the
collaborationmadepossiblethroughonlinedigitaltoolsissosignificantastobe‘truly
revolutionary’.240Anaturalextensiontodigitaleditionsproducedbyteamsofscholars
collaborating,istheapplicationofsocialmediatechnology,leadingtotheinclusionof
volunteersinhelpingtoproducetheseeditions;thatistosay,partoftheproduction
takes place by crowdsourcing. To date there has been relatively little in the way
researchontheimpactorusefulnessofcrowdsourcingforthepreparationofdigital
scholarly editions. The topic is just emerging amongst textual scholars, who are
studyingitbothintheory,241andinpractice,242butpublicationsinthisareaarestill
fewinnumber.TheEstoriaDigitalisthefirsttomakeuseof,orstudy,theapplication
of crowdsourcing techniques for the preparation of a digital scholarly edition of
239PeterRobinson,‘Project-baseddigitalhumanitiesandsocial,digital,andscholarlyeditions’,DigitalScholarshipintheHumanities,DigitalScholarshipintheHumanities,Volume31,Issue4,(1December2016)875–889,875,https://doi.org/10.1093/llc/fqw020[accessed12/04/2018]240Robinson,‘TheDigitalRevolutioninScholarlyEditing’,p.198241Robinson,‘TheDigitalRevolutioninScholarlyEditing’;Pierazzo,DigitalScholarlyEditing.242SeetheseveralpublicationsbytheTranscribeBenthamteam:MartinMoyle,JustinTonraandValerieWallace,‘ManuscriptTranscriptionbyCrowdsourcing:TranscribeBentham’,LiberQuarterly20(3/4)(March2011)347-356;TimCauser,JustinTonraandValerieWallace,‘Transcriptionmaximized;expenseminimized?CrowdsourcingandeditingTheCollectedWorksofJeremyBentham’,LiteraryandLinguisticComputing27:2(March2012)119-137;Causer,Tim,andMelissaTerras,‘‘ManyHandsMakeLightWork.ManyHandsTogetherMakeMerryWork’:TranscribeBenthamandCrowdsourcingManuscriptCollections’,Ridge,M.(Ed.)CrowdsourcingourCulturalHeritage(Farnham:Ashgate,2014)pp.57-88TimCauser,KrisGrint,Anna-MariaSichani,MelissaTerras,‘Makingsuchbargain’:TranscribeBenthamandthequalityandcost-effectivenessofcrowdsourcedtranscription’,DigitalScholarshipintheHumanities,2018,Offprint,1-21;Andmyownpublicationsonthistopic:Duxfield,Polly,‘TranscribingtheEstoriadeEspannausingcrowdsourcing:strategiesandaspirations’,MagnificatCulturaiLiteraturaMedievals,2(2015)pp.129-148,p.131,https://ojs.uv.es/index.php/MCLM/article/view/4977/7071[accessed11/11/2017];PollyDuxfield,‘ThePracticalitiesofCollaborativelyDigitallyEditingMedievalProse:TheEstoriadeEspannaDigitalProjectasaCaseStudy’,DigitalPhilology7.1(Spring2018)74-92
79
medievalproseinCastilian,243andassuch,muchcanbesaidthathasnotbeensaid
before.
Crowdsourcing as a concept pre-dates the digital age,244but its applicationwithin
textual scholarship using social media style technologies, as Bordalejo notes, is
‘exclusivetothedigitalera’.245IncontrasttoRobinson,andasremarkedonabove,I
followedBordalejo,andarguedthatcrowdsourcingdoesnotrepresentthestartofa
revolution in the field of textual editing, since the activity being crowdsourced is
almostalwaystranscription,ratherthanediting.246Indiscussionwithmeonthisissue,
andasIdescribeinmy‘DigitalPhilology’article,Bordalejoexplainedthatinherview,
withwhichIagree,whenaperson–staffmember,studentorvolunteer–ismerely
applying a set of pre-preparedmechanical rules to transmit information from one
semiotic system (the manuscript image) to another (the transcription) this is
transcriptionratherthanediting.Onlyininstanceswherethepersonmustuseeditorial
judgementsuchasincasesofscribalemendation,canweconsiderthistasktomove
beyondtranscriptiontoediting,assuchataskrequiresknowledgeofthetextandhand
tomakean informed judgementabout the text invariousstagesof itspreparation.
Extremely few crowdsourced volunteers therefore could be said to edit. 247
243Thereadermaybeinterestedtoreadthatatthetimeofwriting[June2018],theEstoriaDigitalprojectisenteringintothenextphase,andaproof-of-conceptprojectisjuststarting,whichwillseecrowdsourcingtheEstoriatranscriptionsrolledoutonamoresignificantbasisthanhaspreviouslybeenthecase.Theoutcomesofthepresentresearchintocrowdsourcingfordigitaleditinghavebeen,andwillcontinuetobeputintopracticeinthisnewproject.ThisisanexcitingdevelopmentinthefieldandwillseetheEstoriaDigitalcontinuetobeattheforefrontofcrowdsourcedtranscriptionsofmedievalprose.244Pierazzo,DigitalScholarlyEditing,pp.27-28;Duxfield,‘TranscribingtheEstoriadeEspannausingcrowdsourcing:strategiesandaspirations’,p.131245Bordalejo‘DigitalversusAnalogue’,62246Bordalejo‘DigitalversusAnalogue’,62-63247Duxfield,‘ThePracticalities’,88
80
Crowdsourcingoffersusaprofoundanddramaticchangeinwhocanworktowards
preparingadigitaledition,atleastatthetranscriptionstage,although,asBordalejo
notes,thisisalwaysunderthedirectsupervisionofatextualeditor.248Itistherefore
notarevolutioninhoworbywhomtextsareedited.Iwouldarguethatcrowdsourcing
does, however, represent a revolution in transcription, if not a more widespread
revolutioninthefield.
1.2.8.1Whatiscrowdsourcing?Whatisitspurposefortranscriptionprojects?
The term crowdsourcing is generally attributed to JeffHowe.249Howemakes a link
betweencrowdsourcedtasksandfinanciallabour-savings,sincesomeofthelabouris
providedby‘hobbyists,part-timersanddabblers’,manyofwhomareamateurs.Their
workmaynotalwaysbefree,butcanbemuchcheaperthanpayingemployeesasina
traditionalbusinessmodel.
Whencrowdsourcing isusedtotranscribetextswithinscholarlyprojects,however,
financial savings can be, but are not always the primarymotivation for the use of
crowdsourcing. Crowdsourcing the transcription stage can also bring time savings,
whichwhentimeequalsmoneycanbeextremelybeneficial,giventhatbothtimeand
moneyarealways finitewithina scholarlyproject. Forexample, the crowdsourced
transcriptionprojectTranscribeBentham (TB)was launched in2010aspartof the
248Bordalejo‘DigitalversusAnalogue’,69249JeffHowe,‘TheRiseofCrowdsourcing’,Wiredissue14.06(2006)http://ow.ly/JFY52[accessed26/09/2014]
81
wider Bentham Project at University College London when 40,000 of the 60,000
handwrittenfoliosofthephilosopherandjuristJeremyBenthamtobeincludedinthe
neweditionoftheCollectedWorksofJeremyBentham,hadyettobetranscribed.250The
Bentham Project has been running since 1959. By their March 2018 transcription
updateontheTBblog,somesevenandahalfyearsintothecrowdsourcingproject,
19,957folioshadbeentranscribedbyvolunteers,ofwhich95%hadbeencheckedby
projectstaff.251Benthamstaffdescribethisasa‘colossalamount’ofworkproducedby
volunteers, 252 and upon studying the cost-effectiveness of crowdsourcing these
transcriptions,comparedtopayingaresearchertotranscribe,TBhaveconcludedthat,
even taking into account the significant financial investment required to get
crowdsourcingofftheground,andwhilevolunteersreachfullproficiency,thatintheir
caseatleast,financialsavings(throughtimesavings)havebeenmade.253Similarly,the
approximately 2,500 people who completed the first MOOC (massive open online
course)oftheRevealingCooperationandConflictProject(RCCP)254runbyRogerLouis
Martínez-Dávila of the University of Colorado – Colorado Springs, involving a
collaborationofnineinstitutionsworldwide,transcribedmorethan300foliosofthe
nineteenth-century witnesses of the Capitulary Acts (dated 1399-1453) of the
cathedral of Plasencia in threeweeks.Martínez-Dávila states that thiswould have
takenasinglescholarsixtoninemonths,representingamajortimesaving.255
250Causer,TonraandWallace,119-137;Moyle,TonraandWallace,347-356251LouiseSeaward,TranscriptionUpdate–3rdFebruaryto2ndMarch[2018],(blogpostdated9thMarch2018)http://blogs.ucl.ac.uk/transcribe-bentham/2018/03/09/transcription-update-3-february-to-2-march-2018/[accessed18/03/2018]252Causer,Grint,Sichani,andTerras,5253Causer,Grint,Sichani,andTerras,16254RogerLouisMartínez-Dávila,emailtome,16/1/2016255RogerLouisMartínez-Dávila,‘ThePotentialofMassiveOpenOnlineCourses’,ASPHSNewsletter,Vol.6,Fall2015,8-13,13https://asphs.net/images/ASPHS_Newsletter_vol_6_2015_.pdf[accessed11/11/2017]
82
Ofcourse,volunteertranscribers,especiallyamateurs,arelikelytomakemistakes,so
inTBeachtranscribedfolioischeckedindividuallybyprojectstaff,notacomputer;
thisisacostlyendeavourintermsofbothtimeandmoney,butconsiderednecessary
to ensure the accuracy of transcriptions, 256 and their eventual usefulness for the
BenthamProject.TBprojectstaff,however,recognisethehighlevelofaccuracyusually
found in transcriptions produced by their regular crowdsourcers: Bentham senior
research associate TimCauserhas tweeted ‘We find that thework submitted by a
typicalregularTranscribeBenthamvolunteerisexcellent,withrelativelyfewerrorsin
transcription,andtheycanbecheckedquitequicklybyBenthamprojectstuff[sic].In
short, the work of volunteers is amazing’. 257TB did consider crowdsourcing the
moderationof transcriptions to theirmostprolific andaccuracyvolunteers,buton
consultationwith these volunteers,decided not to take this route.258ForRCCP, the
transcriptions generated by the MOOC were produced using a several-times-blind
transcription process, with transcribers awardedwith an ‘accuracy and reliability’
rating achieved through peer assessment of their transcriptions coupled with
palaeography test scores from earlier on in the MOOC, and where the computer
algorithmwasabletocombineandselectthemostaccuratereadingsfromanumber
oflearnerstoproducethefinaltranscriptionsandreassemblethetranscribedtext.259
Bordalejo, however, has issued a warning for editors relying on double-blind
transcription,whichshearguesherpersonalexperiencehasrevealedtobeflawedas
256CauserandTerras,pp.74-80257TimCauser(@TimCauser),Tweet:‘@BabetteSmithI’llemailyouacopy!WefindthattheworksubmittedbyatypicalregularTranscribeBenthamvolunteerisexcellent,withrelativelyfewerrorsintranscription,andtheycanbecheckedquitequicklybyBenthamprojectstuff.Inshort,theworkofvolunteersisamazing.’Dated16thJanuary2018,https://twitter.com/search?q=transcribe%20bentham&src=typd[accessed15/10/2018]258Causeretal.,‘Makingsuchbargain’,14259Martínez-Dávila,‘ThePotential’,10
83
amethodology,inthattranscribersoftenincorrectlyinterpretunclearreadingsinthe
sameway,andmakethesamemistakes.260Wheretimeisanissue,andwherevolume
oftranscriptionsproducedisbothimportantfortheindividualproject,andcrucially,
canbecheckedforaccuracy,eitherbymachinesasinthecaseoftheRCCP,orbyproject
staff,asinthecaseofTB,crowdsourcingthetaskoftranscriptioncanbringmajortime
savings,whichcanthentranslateintofinancialsavings.
The case is slightly different, however, when the transcription task itself is more
complicatedthanineithertheRCCPorTB,andwheretheinfrastructureoftheproject
cannotcopewithlargenumbersofvolunteers. Itmaybetemptingtothinkthat the
palaeographyinvolvedinbothoftheseprojectsislesscomplexthanthatoftheEstoria
Digital,butBentham’shandwritingisnotoriouslydifficult,particularlyasheaged,and
themedievalscriptusedinthemanuscriptsintheEstoriaprojectis,forthemostpart,
regularandneat,whichgreatlyaidsthepalaeography,whilstthenineteenth-century
scriptoftheRCCPwitnessesfortranscriptionarelessso.Thedifferenceindifficultyof
thetranscriptionhereisnotnecessarilyindecipheringthetext,butintaggingit:RCCP
transcribersworkinplaintext,andTBtranscribershaveaccesstoaWYSIWYG(what
youseeiswhatyouget)XML-inputtool.261RCCPcrowdsourcers,75%ofwhomhad
littleornoknowledgeof Spanish,262werenot required toexpandabbreviations. In
contrast, Estoria Digital full volunteer transcribers, (as opposed to line breakers,
whoserolewassimplytoaddlinebreaktags)wereexpectedtoselect,copyandpaste
260Bordalejo‘DigitalversusAnalogue’,59261MartinMoyle,JustinTonraandValerieWallace,‘ManuscriptTranscriptionbyCrowdsourcing:TranscribeBentham’,LiberQuarterly20(3/4)(March2011)347-356,352-353,https://www.liberquarterly.eu/articles/10.18352/lq.7999/[accessed11/11/2017]262Martínez-Dávila,‘ThePotential’,10
84
expansiontagsfromanon-exhaustivepre-preparedlist,andtagtheirtranscriptions
usingfullTEI5-compliantXML.EachfoliowasthenpainstakinglycheckedbyEstoria
stafftoensureaccuracyandconsistencywiththeothertranscriptionsoftheproject.
Althoughthetranscriptionsofourmostprolificcrowdsourcercouldbecheckedinan
averageof23minutes,comparedwiththeaverage81minutesitwouldtakethesame
member of staff to transcribe, this does not take into account the significant time
investmentmadebyproject staff to train thisvolunteer.263Itwouldhavebeen less
costly in terms of both time and money for project staff to complete all of the
transcriptionsin-houseratherthantodevelopcrowdsourcing.Thepercentageoftime
investedintrainingcrowdsourcerscomparedwithsavingsmadewheneitherchecking
theirtranscriptionsortranscribingourselvesfromscratchwouldhavebeenlessened
iftheinfrastructureoftheprojectcouldhaveallowedforlargernumbersofvolunteers
taking part:we had around fifty volunteers signed up, ofwhomsevenwere active
transcribers.264Themain aimwith crowdsourcing for theEstoriaDigital, however,
wasneitherfinancialnortimesavings,butrathertohelpimproveourlevelofacademic
impactbyallowingnon-specialists,ormembersofthepublictoaccessandengagewith
ouredition,butatanearlierstageintheedition’sdevelopment,andalsotoaidusin
fostering the vibrantworking atmosphere for both scholars and the non-academic
publicdescribedaboveinthisthesis.
Sofar,Ihavetalkedofthepurposeofcrowdsourcingforthetranscriptionprojects.I
will nowmove onto talking about the purpose of crowdsourcing for the individual
263Duxfield,‘TranscribingtheEstoriadeEspannausingcrowdsourcing’,137264Duxfield,‘TranscribingtheEstoriadeEspannausingcrowdsourcing’,135
85
volunteers.
1.2.8.2Thepurposeofcrowdsourcingforvolunteertranscribers
Thosewhobecomevolunteersformanuscripttranscriptionprojectsdosoforavariety
of reasons. Transcription, particularly where it involves inputting XML, and the
requiredpalaeographytobeabletotranscribe,canbeacomplexandchallengingtask,
even for experienced editors. 265 The reasons why an individual may become a
crowdsourcerandprovidetheirlabourforfreecanbeexplainedbytwophenomena,
bothofwhichmustbepresent,butwhichcanexisttovaryingdegreesforeachperson.
Theseareacognitivesurplus,andawhat’s-in-it-for-mefactor.
TheconceptofthecognitivesurpluswasfirstdescribedbyClayShirky,asocialmedia
theorist,andreferstothosewhopossessboththetools(cognitiveandmechanical)to
carryoutthetask,andthemotivationtocreateandshareinformation.266Intermsof
transcription,thiscanexplainwhytheinitiallaunchofcrowdsourcingfortheEstoria
DigitalinApril2014wasunsuccessful.Weorganisedatranscriptionworkshopaimed
atestablishedhistorians,historicallinguistsandtextualeditors,whowereintroduced
toTextual Communities, andwere encouraged to sign up as crowdsourcers (either
themselvesortheirgraduatestudents).Followingtheworkshop,however,virtuallyno
265Pierazzo,DigitalScholarlyEditing,p.28266ClayShirky,‘Howcognitivesurpluswillchangetheworld’TEDtalk,(videofile)(June2010)availableat:https://www.ted.com/talks/clay_shirky_how_cognitive_surplus_will_change_the_world/transcript?language=en[accessed27/11/2015]
86
transcriptionswerecarriedoutbyvolunteers.Reflectiononwhythiswasrevealedthat
althoughwehadprovidedourpotentialcrowdsourcerswiththemechanicaltoolsby
introducingandsigningthemalluptoTextualCommunities,wehadfailedtoprovide
ourpotentialcrowdsourcerswiththecognitivetools,asourexplanationsofhowtotag
had been too complicated for many of the workshop participants, despite their
respective experience as historians and linguists. Furthermore, as established
academics,theylackedthemotivationtoworkfortheprojectforfree,astheydidnot
perceiveenoughpersonalgaintobemadebybecomingvolunteers.Wewerethemost
successfulintermsofrecruitingcrowdsourcerswhenweapproachedparticipantsof
the afore-mentioned RCCP MOOC, who by taking part in the MOOC had already
demonstratedaneagerness to learn transcription skills,hadat least arudimentary
background in palaeography, but required training to have the skills to actually
transcribe.WebridgedthisgapbycreatinganonlinetrainingcourseonCanvas,the
onlineopen-managementlearningsystemusedbytheUniversityofBirmingham.267
Allvolunteertranscribersmusthaveacognitivesurplus,regardlessoftheprojectfor
whichtheyaretranscribing,butitisimportanttoappreciatethatthecognitivesurplus
ofeverytranscriberisnotthesame,andmustbecloselymatchedtotheproject.For
many volunteers, the what’s-in-it-for-me factor is the fulfilment of this cognitive
surplus.Since,asBobHilleryacerbicallynotesinresponsetoablogaboutTB,‘there
267Thecourseisavailableat:https://canvas.bham.ac.uk/courses/6673.ThecoursewaswrittenbymeandChristianKusi-Obodum,andtranslatedintoSpanishbyEnriqueJerezCabreroandAliciaMonteroMálaga.IdiscussedthisissueinmoredetailinPollyDuxfield,‘EditingtheEstoriadeEspanna:practicalimplicationsofcollaborativeeditingusingcrowdsourcing’',TwelfthannualconferenceoftheEuropeanSocietyforTextualScholarship(ESTS)–UsersofScholarlyEditions:EditorialAnticipationsofReading,StudyingandConsulting(DeMontfortUniversity,19th-21stNovember2015
87
ain’tnosuchthingasafreelunch’:268volunteersmustfeelthatthereissomelevelof
personalgainfromacrowdsourcedtaskiftheyaretokeeptakingpart.Ifthevolunteer
perceivesataskastoodifficultortooeasytheircognitivesurpluswillnotbefulfilled,
and the transcriber is likely to lose interest in the project. For example, the task
requiredofvolunteersfortheRCCPtranscriptions–totranscribeinplaintext,ignoring
abbreviationmarks –was significantly less scholarly than that required ofEstoria
volunteerswhowereaskedtoinputXMLtagging;thisisinnowayacriticismofthe
RCCP, nor does itmake the RCCP any less valuable to academia, but it does have
implicationsforboththetargetaudienceofpotentialtranscribers,andofthetaskthey
arerequiredtocarryout.Inotherwords,thetaskmustbeclearlydifferentiatedtosuit
the cognitive surplus of the targeted volunteers, whilst bearing in mind the
requirementsandeventualaimsoftheproject.Crowdsourcersperceivetherewardof
taking part in various projects differently, according to their individual cognitive
surplus.Forexample,learnersfortheRCCParemotivatedtotakepartintheMOOC
(andthereforeprovidetheirfreelabourastranscribers)bybeingtoldtheycanbecome
the‘livingembodimentofthefictionalcharacters,Dr.RobertLangdon(oftheDaVinci
Code)andDr.HenryWalton“Indiana”Jones!’,andthattheywillbeableto‘advance
humanknowledgeoftheMiddleAges!’269Instarkcontrast,volunteertranscribersfor
theGospelAccordingtoJohn,(henceforth‘John’)partoftheInternationalGreekNew
TestamentProject(IGNTP)ledbyDavidParkerattheUniversityofBirmingham,are
requiredtohaveahighlevelofpalaeographicalskillsinordertobeabletotranscribe.
268BobHilleryinJieJennyZou,‘CivilWarProjectShowsProsandConsofCrowdsourcing’,WiredCampus,[commentonblogdated14/06/2011,updated21/06/2011]269‘DecipheringSecrets:UnlockingthemanuscriptsofmedievalSpain’https://www.coursera.org/course/medievalspain[accessed28/11/2015]
88
ForvolunteerstobeacknowledgedbynameinthedigitaleditionofJohn,theymust
transcribeaminimumoftwomanuscripts–anaverageofeightyhours’work.270This
isanextremelysignificanttimeinvestmentwhencomparedwithothercrowdsourced
transcription projects. Volunteers therefore often needmore than just a cognitive
surplus to be fulfilled;many John transcribers, a number ofwhom are evangelical
Christians from theUS,perceive thewhat’s-in-it-for-me factorof takingpart in the
project to be the higher purpose of working on ancient biblical texts. 271 The
motivational titlesgiventoparticipantsof theRCCPsuchas ‘CathedralArchdeacon-
Advanced Paleographer’ would be unlikely to have the same effect on John
transcribers,andmayevendeterparticipation,astheymaybeconsideredfrivolous.
Atthesametime,itissimilarlyunlikelythatmanyoftheMOOC’sintendedparticipants
wouldbesufficientlymotivatedtoinputtheminimumeightyhoursoftranscription
required for acknowledgment in the eventual edition of the John by simply the
potentialofhavingtheirnamepublished,thecognitivegainstheywouldmake,andfor
many,theperceiveddevotionalvalueofthetask.272
There is,ofcourse,ahappymediumbetween thesetwoextremes,againbearing in
mind the balance of both the perceived needs of the intended audience and the
requirementsof thetranscriptionproject.Crowdsourcers forTBarerewardedwith
pointsandtheabilitytoappearontheleaderboard,the‘Benthamometer’;therewards
for the Estoria are staider, being based more on the cognitive gains available to
volunteers, reflecting the more scholarly nature of both the task and the target
270RachelKevern,Personalinterviewwithmeon4/11/2014271Kevern,Personalinterviewon4/11/2014272Kevern,Personalinterviewon4/11/2014
89
audience.Infact,whentheideaofusingcompetitionasamotivationaltoolwasraised
on theEstoria blog itwasmetwith almost indignation byone ofourmost prolific
volunteersinacommenthewroteasaresponsetotheoriginalpost.273
Linkedtothis,inordertoretainvolunteersoncerecruitedandtrained,itisnecessary
togivetranscriberstheoptiontocarryouttasksthatincreaseindifficulty,toensure
that the transcription task continues to fulfil their cognitive surplus and remains a
challenge.Asmentionedabove,RCCPtranscribersworkinplaintext,butlearnerswere
asked to self-differentiate, to use a pedagogical term, by selecting which image to
transcribe fromseveral,ofvaryingdifficulty,allocatedtotheirsurnameinitial.This
self-differentiation enables participants to choose the most appropriate level of
difficultyforthemselves,asindividuals–enoughtofeelchallenging,soworthdoing,
butnotsohardastofeelinsurmountable.TBtranscribershaveaccesstoaWYSIWYG
XML-input tool. 274 Volunteer transcribers for John, working within the user-
friendly’ 275 online transcription platform named the Workspace for Collaborative
Editing,arealsoabletoself-differentiate,andhavetheoptiontoworkinplaintext,or
touseaneditableWYSIWYGsystem.276HughHoughtonoftheIGNTPexplainsthatthe
WYSIWYGtoolisbeneficialforthoseunfamiliarwithXMLencoding,givenits‘verbose
273NickLeonardinPollyDuxfield,‘Crowdsourcingupdate–June2015’,TheEstoriadeEspannaProjectBlog(commentonblogdated13thJune2015)http://estoria.bham.ac.uk/blog/?p=598[accessed10/12/2015]274MartinMoyle,JustinTonraandValerieWallace,‘ManuscriptTranscriptionbyCrowdsourcing:TranscribeBentham’,LiberQuarterly20(3/4)(March2011)347-356,352-353,https://www.liberquarterly.eu/articles/10.18352/lq.7999/[accessed11/11/2017]275H.A.G.Houghton,MartinSievers,andCatherineSmith,‘TheWorkspaceforCollaborativeEditing’,DigitalHumanitiesConference,(Lausanne,9thJuly2014)availableathttp://dharchive.org/paper/DH2014/Paper-224.xml[accessed13/11/2015]276Houghton,Sievers,andSmith
90
character’, 277 and who may feel daunted at the prospect of encoding their
transcriptions. Unlike in TB or the transcriptions of the RCCP MOOC, where
transcriptionsarecreatedfromscratch,transcribersofJohnadaptabasetextfroma
pre-existingtranscriptionofanotherwitness,alteringthetranscriptionwhereitdoes
not coincide with the text in the manuscript image being transcribed. 278 Again,
workingfromapre-existingbasetexttranscriptionremovessomeofthecomplexity
ofthetaskrequiredintranscribing,butis,ofcourse,onlypossiblewhenthematerial,
orasimilarwitnessofthematerial,haspreviouslybeentranscribed,whichisclearly
notalwaysthecase,sosuchastrategyisnotalwaysanoption.
Alloftheaboveispurelyacademic,however,untilaprojecthasbeenabletorecruit
therighttypeofvolunteersforthatproject.Iwilladdressthisissuenext.
1.2.8.3Recruitmentofvolunteertranscribers
Aswiththeabovepointregardingthedifferentiationof transcription for thetarget
audienceofpotentialvolunteers,themethodstorecruitcrowdsourcersforaparticular
projectiscloselylinkedtothetargetaudience.Indiscussionwithme,IGNTPresearch
277Houghton,‘TheElectronicScriptorium’,36278RachelKevern,TranscribingGreekMinisculeManuscripts:AtutorialcreatedforvolunteertranscribersfortheInternationalFreeNewTestamentProject(2010)Unpublished,p.7Availableat:Chapters1and2:http://epapers.bham.ac.uk/753/1/Tutorial1%262.pdf[accessed31/10/2015]Chapters3and4:http://epapers.bham.ac.uk/1480/1/TranscribingTutorial3%264.pdf[accessed31/10/2015]Chapters5and6:http://epapers.bham.ac.uk/1481/1/TranscribingTutorial5%266.pdf[accessed31/10/2015]
91
fellowRachelKevernexplainedthattheJohnprojectiswellknowninthecirclesofthe
targetaudience,andothervolunteerscomeacrosstheprojectwhenresearchingthe
New Testament online. They therefore do not specifically market the project
specifically to recruit volunteers.279 TB, contrastingly, does market specifically for
recruitment.Anexampleoftheirmarketinghighlightstheneedforsuchmarketingto
be timely, however: over Christmas 2010 aNew York Times article publicised the
project280leadingtoasurgeinvolunteerssigningup;butthedelayduetostaffannual
leaveinprovidingfeedbackmeantthatmanyofthesenewvolunteerslostinterestin
theproject.281ThewiderBenthamProjecthasalsobeenwidelypublicisedwithinthe
UKmainstreammediamorerecently,particularlysinceBentham’sembalmedheadhas
beenondisplayandhisDNAtestedforthegeneticmarkersofautism.282Thiscould
haveledtoaninfluxofnewtranscribers,buthasnot:283probablybecauseTBwasnot
specificallymentionedinthenewsarticles.
1.2.8.4Sectionconclusion
When assessing the extent to which crowdsourcing represents a methodological
revolution for digital editing, wemust remember Bordalejo’s above argument that
279Kevern,Personalinterviewon4/11/2014280PatriciaCohen,’ScholarsRecruitPublicforProject’,NewYorkTimes(27thDecember2010),http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/28/books/28transcribe.html[accessed13/11/2017]281Causer,TonraandWallace,129-130282SarahKnapton,‘SeveredheadofeccentricJeremyBenthamtogoondisplayasscientiststestDNAtoseeifhewasautistic’,TheTelegraph(02October2017)http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2017/10/02/severed-head-eccentric-jeremy-bentham-go-display-scientists/[accessed11/11/2017]283LouiseSeaward,PersonalcommunicationviaFacebookmessengeron14/11/2017
92
mostvolunteerstranscriberatherthanedit,soitcannotbearevolutioninediting.This
does, however, bring with it questions of exactly what we understand by editing:
simplifyingtheissuealmosttothepointofcaricature,ontheonehandwehavethe
mostpluralisticapproachtotheterm,whichwouldconsiderittocoveralltaskstodo
withtherecordingormanipulatingofthetextwithinthepreparationofanedition;on
theotherhandwehavethehardlinetakenbyBowersandhisdisciples,284forwhom
editingbeginsatthecollationstage–priorstepsarenecessaryforthecollationtobe
possible, but are not editing. 285 Whatever we understand by ‘editing’, though,
crowdsourcing cancertainly representa revolution in thewaywe transcribe texts,
howweasscholarsengagewiththewiderpublic,andhowthewiderpubliccanengage
withthetextsweareediting.
Predictingthefutureofthedigitalisneverstraightforward,andalthoughitlooksat
themomentthatprojectswhosetranscriptionsaregeneratedthroughcrowdsourcing
may increase,we shouldalso consider theadventof automaticHTR technology for
historicaldocuments,someofwhichcanalsotagtranscriptionsinTEI.Inhisafore-
citedrecent tweet, JoséManuelFradejasRueda,directorof theprojectcreatingthe
digital Siete Partidas, posted an image of three folios and their XML tagged
transcription, with the text ‘Nada de la codificación #TEI de este fragmento fue
introducidoporserhumano.CómocodificarenTEIsinsaberTEI#7PartidasDigital’.286
Whilst the use of HTR technology is qualitatively different to crowdsourcing, its
284Bowers,223-224285Duxfield,‘ThePracticalities’,88286JoséManuelFradejasRueda(@JMFradeRue),Tweet:‘Nadadelacodificación#TEIdeestefragmentofueintroducidoporserhumano.CómocodificarenTEIsinsaberTEI#7PartidasDigital’,dated20thOctober2017,https://twitter.com/JMFradeRue[accessed13/11/2017]
93
applicationtothetranscriptionstagemayaffecttheuseofcrowdsourcing.Onecould
arguethatcrowdsourcingisnotusefulforeverytranscriptionoreditingproject,since
it involves a major time (and therefore financial) investment to recruit and train
volunteers, to check their transcriptions for accuracy to ensure their eventual
usefulness for the project, and to provide feedback to try to ensure volunteers are
retained.Suchaninvestmentcanonlybeoffsetbythetimeandfinancialsavings in
havingvolunteerstranscribewhenthisisdoneonalargescale.Byextension,asHTR
technologybecomesmoresophisticatedandaccurateand itsusemorewidespread,
the requirement for transcription projects to generate transcriptions through
crowdsourcingmaydiminish,sincethesecouldbegeneratedmuchmorequicklyand
cheaplyviaacomputer.However,theteambehindTB,whoarealsoworkingtowards
incorporatingHTRtechnologyintotheirtranscriptionmethodologyarenotcurrently
expectingthatthesenewtoolswillendtheneedfortranscriptionstobeproducedby
volunteer humans any time soon, but rather that the technology will boost
crowdsourcers’ confidence in reading Bentham’s ‘rather indecipherable
handwriting’,287andwillmakethetaskoftranscription‘morestraightforward’.288The
morewidespreaduseofHTRtechnologymaythereforeenableanevolutionintheuse
ofvolunteers,ratherthanitsdemise.
Crowdsourcingisusefulinalleditingprojectsaimingforengagementbymorethana
selectgroupofacademics,asoneofarangeofimpactactivities,andthisislikelytostill
287LouiseSeawardandElaineCharwat,‘IfyouteachacomputertoRead…’December/January2016/17,CILIPUpdate,https://read.transkribus.eu/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/Update_1201_pp38-40.pdf,38-40,39[accessed15/03/2018]288LouiseSeaward,‘TranscribingwithTechnology:TheBenthamandRecognitionandEnrichmentofArchivalDocumentsProjects’,RHSNewsletter,May2016,20-23,20
94
betrue,evenwhenHTRtechnologyismorewidelyused.However,thisusefulnesshas
to be measured against the time and financial investment required to set up the
infrastructurerequiredforcrowdsourcing,whichmakestranscriptionbyvolunteers
prohibitively expensive for smaller projects. The benefits of increased engagement
maynotalwaysoutweighthecostsofdevelopingthecrowdsourcinginfrastructure,
andwhentimeandmoneyaretight,couldbeconsideredanunjustifiableluxury.
***
The objective of this section was to help contextualise the rest of the thesis, in
particulartheeditionandsubsequentanalysisoftheCPSF,throughabriefoverviewof
therelevanthistoryoftextualeditingandthenanoutlineofsomeoftheissuesinvolved
indigital textualediting.Theabovediscussion,althoughfar fromexhaustive,raises
someoftheissuesinvolvedindigitaltextualscholarship.Thiscansolvesomeproblems
belongingtoprinteditions,furthercomplicateothers,andraisenewones,specificto
digitalandnottoprinteditions.Theissuesraisedherewillberelevantinlatersections
ofthethesisastheywillaffecthowIedittheCPSF,andhowIanalysemyowneditorial
decisions,particularlyconsideringhowthedecisionsImakeatthepreparationstage
oftheeditionwillaffect–andareaffectedby–bothhowtheeditionislikelytobeused
andbywhom.Iwillnextlookmorecloselyatthedigitaleditingofmedievaltextsto
providerelevantbackgroundandcontext,astheseissuestoo,willaffectthechoicesI
makewhenpreparingmyedition.
95
1.3Editingmedievalprose
Thecreationofaneditionofmedievalhandwrittentextsdiffersfromthecreationofa
textorworkfromtheeraofprint.Extraconsiderationsbelongingtothepre-printera
requireaneditortoaddressissuesspecifictoeditionsoftextsfromthisperiod.The
issuesdiscussedherearenotlimitedtotheoneswhichappearbelow,andnorarethey
discussedexhaustively,andsomearenotspecifictodigitaleditingtotheexclusionof
printediting.The issuesraisedhere,arehowever,relevant to thetheoryofediting,
including digital editing, of medieval material, and will affect the way in which I
preparethedigitalCPSF.
1.3.1Authorship,patronage,andemendation
One issue that themoderneditorofmedieval textswhenediting inbothprint and
digitalformatsmustaddressisthatofauthorship:themedievalnotionofauthorship
isdifferenttomoremodernnotions.AlastairMinnisshowsusthatinthethirteenth-
century,moreimportantthanthespecificindividualwhoactuallywrotethetext,was
the notion of the work’s auctor, or, in Aristotelian terms, its efficient cause. 289
Elsewherehestatesthatthemedievalperiodwasonewhichvalued‘theuniversalover
theparticularandthetypicalovertheindividual’.290ReferringtoMinnis’work,Albert
Russell Ascoli explains that amedieval ‘author’, anauctor,was not necessarily the
289A.J.Minnis,Medievaltheoryofauthorship,secondedition(Aldershot:WildwoodHouse,1988),p.5290A.J.Minnis,‘Thesignificanceofthemedievaltheoryofauthorship’,in:SeánBurke(ed.)Authorship:fromPlatotothepostmodern–areader(Edinburgh:EdinburghUniversityPress,1995)pp.23-30,p.24
96
writerat all, but rather theauthoritybehind the text, ratherasGod is seenas ‘the
ultimateauctor’oftheBible,yetneveractuallyliftedapen.291
AsEggertpointsout,whatwewouldnowconsidertobeforgery,piracyorplagiarism
wentonrespectablythroughouttheMiddleAges:artistsandcraftsmenwouldimitate
oneanother,andsincethemodernculturalnotionofauthorshipdidnotdevelop in
Europe until at least the eighteenth century, written texts would be copied and
changedbyscribes,readersortheownerofthedocument.292InmedievalEurope,texts
wereseenas‘compositeorcollaborativeproduct[s]’,293ratherthanastheintellectual
propertyoftheauthor,asaccordingtoourmodernnotion,wheretheonlyauthentic
emendations to the text could or should bemade by the author orwith his orher
express agreement. Inmedieval texts, the concept of an ‘author’ is problematic:294
changeswillalmostcertainlyhavebeenmadebyscribes,whetherintentionallyoras
errors;andsourceswillmostlikelybeunattributed,tothepointoflargesectionsbeing
directly copiedandbecomingpartof anothertext,.The roleof ‘author’ inmedieval
textswasoftenclosertowhatwewouldnowdescribeasrolessuchascompiler,editor
orpatron,oramixtureofthethree.Forexample,theGeneralEstoria295isattributedto
AlfonsoXasauctor,yetcontainsthefamousstatement:
ElReyfazeunlibᵒ.Noporqlelescriuacosꝰmanos.Masporqcomponelasrazonesdel⁊lasemiedaetyegua⁊enderesca⁊muestralamanadecomo
291AlbertRussellAscoli,DanteandtheMakingofaModernAuthor,(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,2008)pp.6-8292Eggertpp.63-65293Eggert,p.65294AengusWard,‘EditarlaEstoriadeEspanna:Retosyproblemasdelaedicióndigital’,Incipit37(2017),13-43,20295AlfonsoX,Generalestoria–Primeraparte,Madrid:BibliotecaNacionaldeEspaña,MS816,f.216rImagesavailableatBibliotecaDigitalHispánica(BibliotecaNacionaldeEspaña)http://bdh.bne.es/bnesearch/detalle/bdh0000131513[accessed09/07/2017]
97
sedeuenfazer.⁊desiescriuelasqelmanda.ꝑodezimosporestarazonqelReyfazeellibro.296
Thekinghereisplayingmoreoftheroleofpatronandofeditorthanwhatwewould
nowconsidertobethatofauthor.Inthemedievalperioditwasnotuncommonfor
workstobeattributedtoan‘author’inthisway,evenwhentheindividualconcerned
mighthavedonenothingbutcompilewritingsbyothers:StephenPartridgeexplains
thatacompilingatextinthisway‘wasnotanalternativetoauthorshipbutanessential
aspectofit.’297
Furthermore, aswe know, and aswewill see later in this thesis, there existmany
variantwitnessesoftheAlfonsinetexts,itcanbeseenthatevenwhentheauctorisa
king,othersstillfelttheyhadtheauthoritytoeditandchangethetext.Medievaltexts
werenotconsidered‘finished’inthewaythatmoderntextsareconsideredcompleted
oncetheyleavetheauthor,editororpublishinghouse,butratherwereseen,ifnotby
the original authorhimself (following amedieval notion ofwhat thismeans),who
wouldmostlikelyhaveconsideredthetexttobefinished,butbyscribes,readersand
later owners of the document, as products which could and would be edited and
changedatalaterdate.
Itisforthisreasonthatscholarsmaychoosetostudytextswhichhavebeenrewritten,
editedoremended,andmaywishtoseeinaneditionthetextatvariousstatesofits
296Transcriptionofanexcerptof:AlfonsoelSabio,Generalestoria–primeraparte,Madrid,BibliotecaNacionaldeEspañaMS816,f.216r297StephenPartridge,‘TheMakereofthisBoke’:Chaucer’sRetractionandtheAuthorasScribeandCompiler’,StephenPartridgeandEricKwakkel(Eds.)Author,Reader,Book:MedievalAuthorshipinTheoryandPractice,(Toronto:UniversityofTorontoPress,2012)pp.106-153,p.133
98
transmission. In such cases a critical edition, a Lachmannian edition, or a best-text
edition,wouldbeinappropriate,astheywouldremovethelayersofdetailthatsome
scholarsmaywishtostudy.Thatisnottosaythatthereisnoplaceforsucheditions
withinscholarshipofhistoricaldocuments,butratherthatwhereverpossibletheuser
shouldbeofferedarangeofpresentationsofthetextinadigitaledition.Whereasprint
editors are constrained by the possibilities of the page, and can feasibly present a
maximumoftwopresentationswithinanedition,digitaleditorshaveagreaterlevelof
flexibilityavailabletothem,andasaresultitisoftenpossiblethattheuserhasmore
controloverhowtheyviewtheedition,meaningtheycanstudythetextsoftheedition
inawaythatbettersuitstheirneeds.ThisisapointtowhichIwillreturnbelow.
How modern editors handle the emendation or rewriting of texts when editing
medievalmaterialdependsontheirplacementonthespectrumfromtheLachmannian
to the Bédierist approach,298and the needs and expectations of their users, which
cyclically both inform and are informed by the editorial approach and culture in
question,asseenintheabove.Bédieristinhisapproach,CesareSegrearguedin1978
thatthescribe,ormoreaccuratelyhislinguisticsystem,wasaprismthroughwhich
thetextmustpassinordertobecopied,andthatbecauseofthiswecannotforgetthe
roleofthescribeinthelifeofthetext:‘ilestimpossiblequelesystèmeducopistene
s’y superpose aumoins par quelques aspects […] faire taire son système est aussi
impossiblequ’annulersonhistoricité’.299EditorswithamoreLachmannianapproach,
298ItisworthnotingthatbothKarlLachmannandJosephBédierwereeditorsofmedievaltexts,sobothoftheirapproacheswereoriginallydesignedforthespecificitiesofeditingmedievalmaterial.299CesareSegre,‘Lestranscriptionsentantquediasystèmes’,ColloquesInternationauxduCNRS,No.579–Lapractiquedesordinateursdanslacritiquedestextes,Paris,29-31March1978(Paris,ÉditionsduCentreNationaldelaRechercheScientifique,1979),pp.45-47
99
however, such as José Manuel Lucía Megías, have used more loaded terms when
arguingthatwhilsttheauthorialoriginaltextcanbeconsidered‘sound’,anylaternon-
authorial emendationsare ‘noise’,300and that theeditorial idealwouldbe toget as
closeaspossibletotheoriginalauthorialtext.301LucíaMegíasdescribesanargument
byMarioMartelli,wherehesaysscribalcontamination(anotherloadedterm),ismore
prevalent in vulgar texts, since a scribe copying a text in his native language, as
opposed to Latin or Greek, ismore likely to understand the text and therefore be
tempted to, or may accidentally make substitutions, omissions, insertions and
corrections.302EmmaDillonarguesagainsttheLachmannianapproachofediting:‘The
edition gives the impression of amono-authorial enterprise, while themanuscript
shows–intheveryink,handwriting,prickingpatternsandplanningnotes–thatthe
authorityofthetextisitselfplural.’303,Aswehaveseenabove,putmostcrudely,and
with the danger of greatly oversimplifying, for Lachmannian editors, scribal
emendations are to be removed, leaving a text as close to the authorialoriginal as
possible; forBédierists scribal emendationsbecomepartof the text, and removing
themstripsalayerofhistoryfromthetext.
Where only onewitness is extant it can be expected that an editorwill produce a
documentary edition based solely on this. Where there is more than one witness
300JoséManuelLucíaMegías,‘ManualesdeCríticaTextual:Laslíneasmaestrasdelaecdóticaespañola’,Revistadepoéticamedieval,2,(1998)115-153,118,https://tinyurl.com/y75nm3ah[accessed07/09/2017]301LucíaMegías,‘Manuales’,126302MarioMartelli,‘Considerazioniintornoallacontaminazionenellatradizionedeitestivolgari’,Lacriticadeltesto:problemidimetodoedesperienzedelavoro:attidelConvegnodiLecce,22-26ottobre1984(Rome:Salerno,1985)pp.127-149,pp.147-148,citedinLucíaMegías,‘Manuales’,147,[mytranslation]303EmmaDillon,MedievalMusic-MakingandtheRomandeFauvel,(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,2002)p.37
100
available,theeditorwillhavetoconsiderwhichstyleofeditionshewillproduce,along
theLachmann-Bédiercontinuum.Inthecaseofhandwrittenmedievaltextsitcanbe
far from clear where the work of the ‘author’ stops and the emendations of the
copyist(s)andlaterownersorreaderofthedocumentbegin.Forsuchtextsitisnot
straightforwardtoproduceaLachmannianeditionwhichaimstoreconstructatext
thatisassimilaraspossibletothelostauthorialversion.Itcanbesomewhateasierto
dothisfortextfromtheageofprint,andparticularlythosefromafterthetimeour
modernnotionofintellectualpropertyandcopyrightbegantoemerge.ABédierist,or
acopy-textapproachwillmeanthatonewitnesswillbefavouredoveranother,and,
likealleditors,theeditorofthemedievaltextwillhavetojustifyherreasonsforthe
choiceofwitness.
1.3.2Marginalia
Linkedtothenotionofauthorshipandscribalorlateremendationstothetext,isthat
ofmarginaliainmedievalmanuscripts.Althoughnotalwaysauthorial,justastextual
emendations,thesecanbeconsideredinsomeschoolsofeditingtohavebecomepart
ofthetextitself,sincetheyformpartoftheintentionalmarksmadeonthedocument,
designedtobedecodedbyareadingagent.304Marginaliamayormaynotberelevant
to thetext, itsmeaning,andthecontextofthewitness’sproduction:marginaliacan
explainpointsinthetext,linktorelevantsourcesorrelatedtexts,highlightkeypoints
304SeeBordalejo,‘TheTextsWeSee’,65-68
101
orprotagonists,orbeseeminglyirrelevant,forexamplescribalcomplaintsaboutthe
conditionsinwhichhewasworking(althoughsuchcommentscanrevealthecontext
inwhichthewitnesswasproduced,soonecouldcertainlyarguetheirrelevance).Some
of the funnierandperhapsmostseemingly irrelevantmarginalia formsthebasisof
manyTwitteraccountsandwebsites305appreciatingthelikesofsword-fightingsnails,
trumpet-playingmonkeysandimagesmorevulgarthanthese.Eventhesecanberead
ascommunicatingtheconditionsandcontextsinwhichthedocumentwasproduced
andhasbeenreadovertheyears.McGannandMcKenzie’saforementionedrespective
workonthesocialnatureoftextsandasexamplesofthebibliographicalcodesofthe
document 306 tells us that such marginalia could therefore be seen to shape our
understandingofthetext(andnotjustthelinguisticcodeofthetext).Somescholars
may argue that even this sort ofmarginalia should be included in digital editions,
althoughthisreallyisattheextremeendoftheargument,andmanyeditorswouldbe
morelikelytonotincludenoteswithinthetranscriptionaboutnon-textualmarginalia.
Theimplicationhereisthattextualmarginaliaisseenbyeditorsasmorelikelytobe
relevanttothetext,whichisanissuefordebate.Aneditormustdecidewhetherornot
toincludemarginaliaintheedition.Todothis,hemustweighuptheextenttowhich
themarginaliacanaidareader’sunderstandingofthetext,againsttheextenttowhich
themarginaliacanbeseenas‘noise’,furthercomplicatingthetext.Suchadecisionis
likelytobebasedonthetypeofeditionbeingproducedanditsintendedusageand
audience.Inmanydigitaleditionstheusercanaccessimagesofthemanuscripteither
aspartoftheeditionitselforviaalink,soisabletoviewmarginaliaforhim,ifthisis
305OneexampleisthePinterestpage‘WeirdMedievalMarginalia’,https://www.pinterest.com/pin/414683078164618110/[accessed03/05/2017].306SeeMcKenzie,pp.18-19;McGann,‘FromTexttoWork’,226;Shillingsburg,p.16
102
hisdesire.Aswithotheraspectsofthetext,however,ifanitemisnottaggedauser
cannotsearchforitsoeasily,andinthehuntformarginaliaonewouldhavetoresort
toflickingthroughmanuscriptimages,justasonemightleafthroughabook.Thereare
also,ofcourse,manydigitaleditionswherethemanuscriptimagesarenotviewableby
users, so this may affect the editor’s decision to perhaps make a note about the
existenceofsuchmarginalia,whereeditorsincludingmanuscriptimagesintheedition
maychoosenotto.
1.3.3Scribalpractice
Theeditorofmedievalprosemustalsocontendwiththefactthathandwritingisoften
moredifficulttoreadthantypescript,andthetextmaybeheavilyabbreviated.307Of
course,post-medievalauthorshaveoftenanddooftenstillchoosetohandwritetheir
manuscripts,sothisissueisnotuniquetomedievaltexts.Indeed,aswesawinthecase
of Transcribe Bentham, in some cases the standardised letter forms of the early
medieval set scripts can, with training, be easier to read than more modern
handwriting,particularlywhenmoremodernauthorshaverushedorscribbledwhen
editingtheirownmanuscripts.Furthermore,fortheexperiencedpalaeographer,once
acquaintedwiththehandandidiosyncrasiesoftheorthographyandabbreviationsin
307Dillon,p.33Dillonmakesaninterestingasideinafootnotewhenshementionsthesecretiveencodingofsomeeleventh-centurycourthands,whowouldabbreviatetextsoheavilytopurposelyrenderitillegibletothosenotmeanttoreadit.Footnote16,p.33
103
use,theseareunlikelytocauseissuesforthemuchofthetext,providingthedocument
has not been too badly damaged. However, even an experienced palaeographer is
likely to have queries about certain abbreviations, what exactly constitutes the
abbreviationmark,andhowtoexpandthewordwhilerespectingtheorthographyof
thewitness.Thiscanbeaparticularissuewhenrenderinghandwrittenabbreviations
into typescript, since currently it is simply not possible to reproduce the
palaeographical intricacies of a handwritten manuscript in an electronic
transcription.308Forthedigitaleditor,asalways,thefactthatimagesofthemanuscript
areoftenavailableforviewingonlinebyusersoftheeditioncanbebeneficial,butcan
alsoaddanextra layerof consideration:whilst there ismore scope for scrutinyof
editorialdecisions,asusersmaychoosetoconsulttheimagesofthewitness,usersare
nottiedtorespectingtheeditor’sdecisionsintheirownwork,andtheycanchooseto
deviatefromthem,justifyingitbyexplainingtheirowninterpretationsbasedonthe
imagesofthedocumentsuponwhichtheeditionisbased.Thisissueisdiscussedmore
fullyinthecontextofeditingtheCPSFinChapterThree.
1.3.4Orthography
Wheneditingmedievaltexts,afurtherissuetobeaddressedcomesintoplaywhenthe
textdatestoaperiodwhenorthographicalnormswerenotyetfixed.Thisis,ofcourse,
notonlyanissueindigitaleditions.Putmostsimply,insingle-witnessorbest-textstyle
308Duxfield,‘ThePracticalities’,77
104
editionstheeditorwouldbemostlikelytochoosetheorthographicformsexactlyas
theyappearinthewitness,ortheymaychoosetodeviatefromtheorthographyinthe
witnessandjustifythisdecision.InLachmannian-styleeditionstheeditorwouldoften
choosethe formsfromthewitnessconsideredclosest to theoriginal,andgenerally
regularisetothese.However,sinceorthographicnormswerenotfixedinthemedieval
period, and especially in cases where more than one scribe worked on the same
document,itcanbethecasethatmorethanonespellingofthesamewordappearsin
thesamewitness,leadingtopotentialorthographicinconsistenciesintheedition.This
could affect concordances and search functions, if the search tool does not find
approximatestringmatches,or‘fuzzysearches’.309Othereditorsmaybeusingmore
thanonewitnesswithdifferingorthographywithinwitnesses,andbetweenwitnesses.
Insuchcases,editorsneedtoconsidercarefullyhowtoapproachthisissue,according
tothestyleofeditiontheywanttoproduce,andtheneedsandexpectationsoftheir
intended audience. A further level of consideration is required when the editor is
expandingabbreviationsinwordsspelledinconsistentlywhentheyappearinextenso
withinawitness,orbetweenwitnesses ifmore thanone isbeingused. Inall cases
except editions based on just one witness where there are no orthographically-
differing formsandnoabbreviations,editorshavetheoptiontonormalisediffering
spellingsornot,andhavetojustifytheirchoices.310Theimplicationsofthisissueto
mydigitaleditionoftheCPSFwillbediscussedinChapter3.
309Thatsaid,itispossibletolemmatisetranscriptions,butthisrequiresagreatdealofsupplementarytagging.Itisworthnotingherethatatthepresenttime,neithertheEstoriaDigitalnorthedigitaleditionoftheCPSFprovideaconcordancesearchfunction,lemmatisedornot,asthisfelloutsidethepossibilitiesavailableduetotheever-presentconstraintsoftimeandfinances.310ThisissueisdiscussedinblogpostsfortheEstoriadeEspannaDigitalProject:PollyDuxfield,‘Yousay‘nuestro’,Isay‘nostro’.Let’scallthewholethingoff.’BlogpostdatedMarch5th2015,http://estoria.bham.ac.uk/blog/?p=542,[accessed30/05/2017];and
105
1.3.5Fragmentarytraditions
A further issue not exclusive to textual material frommedieval times, but which,
broadlyspeaking,cantendtoaffectoldermaterialmorethanthemoremodern,and
requirestheeditor’sconsideration,isthatofthesurvivalofwitnesses.Thesemaybe
extantasfullorpartialcopies,orsimplyfragmentsofanylength.Thebindingofthe
documentmayhavebeenchanged,withquiresorleaveslostoradded,orleavesmay
beusedasthebindingforlaterdocuments.311Medievalinkmayhavebecomefadedor
haveflakedaway,leavingonlyashadowmarkingwhereitoncewas.312Furthermore,
thedocument(s)mayhavebeendamagedbyanynumberofagentsovertime,suchas
exposuretowaterormoisture, light, fire,rodents,mould,poorstorage,handlingor
repairs,ordeliberatemalignancy.313Thebindingitselfmayevenhavehadaneffecton
thelegibilityofthetext:medievalgluescandamageparchment.314
Inthecaseofdocumentdamage,amoderneditorhasthebenefitofmanytoolsthat
ourforebearsdidnot.Forexample,highqualitydigitalimagingcanbezoomedinon
damagedsectionsofthedocumenttoreadtextwhichmaybeillegiblebythenaked
eye,evenwithoptimallighting.Scholarscanmakeuseofcolouraswellasblackand
whiteimaging,orcanchangethecontrastofimages,whichcansometimesrendertext
PollyDuxfield,‘Crowdsourcersgivingusfoodforthought’,BlogpostdatedJanuary26th2015,http://estoria.bham.ac.uk/blog/?p=530,[accessed30/05/2017].311Dillon,p.34312WilliamSchipper,‘Digitizing(Nearly)UnreadableFragmentsofCyprian’sEpistolary’,SiânEchardandStephenPartridge(eds.)TheBookUnbound:EditingandReadingMedievalManuscripts(Toronto:UniversityofTorontoPress,2004)pp.159-168,p.161313Schipper,p.158314Schipper,p.161
106
clearer.315Furthermore,digitalimagingsoftwarecanbeusedtofillingapsintext,the
contents of which can appear invisible to the naked eye. 316 It is important to
remember,however, thatwherepossible, aneditormaychoose tousedigital tools
alongside,andnottotallyinplaceofworkingwiththeoriginaldocumentbeingedited.
Aswellashavingacertainromanticcharm,consultingtheoriginalcanallowscholars
tofullyappreciateeachfolioaspartofalongertext,asworkingpurelyfromdigital
imagescanencouragethefolio-by-folioapproachdescribedabove,throughwhichthe
editorcanlosesightoftherelationshipbetweenfoliosandquires.Itcanalsoallowthe
editor to appreciatemore fully some of the bibliographic codes of thewitness, for
examplethefrontcoverofacodex,ortheuseofgoldleafonafolio,thefulleffectsof
which can be lostwhen they are only shownas digital images. Furthermore, some
queriescanbemosteasilyansweredbyconsultingtheoriginaldocument,particularly
whenscholarsareworkingfromlowerqualitydigitalimages,facsimiles,orimagesor
photocopiesoffacsimiles.Ultravioletlightcanalsoenablesomedamagedtexttobe
read, just as it can sometimes enable scholars to read the original of scribal
emendations,althoughasWilliamSchipperpointsout,theultravioletlightitselfcan
damage documents, so should be used sparingly andwith care.317This, of course,
cannotbedonetodigitalimages.
***
315Schipper,p.163316Schipper,p.162317Schipper,p.162
107
Therelevanceofthissectiontothethesisasawholeistoshowsomeoftheparticular
issues facing editors of medieval material, since these can differ greatly to those
involvedineditinglatermaterialorthatfromtheeraofprint.Notalloftheaspects
describedherehavebeenexclusivelyrelevanttoeditingmedievalmaterialdigitally,as
somearealsofacedbyprinteditors,butthisdoesnotmitigatetheneedforeditorsof
medievalmaterialtobeawareofthemandinmanycasestoactaccordingly.Iwillnow
lookspecificallyatthecontextofeditingmedievaltextsinCastilian.
1.4EditingmedievaltextsinCastilian
It is important to remember that because of the Castilian-language context of the
editiontobeproducedforthisthesis,andofthewiderEstoriaDigital,ofwhichthis
thesisandtheassociatededitionwillformapart,much,butnotnecessarilyall,ofits
readershipislikelytobefromaCastilian-languagebackground.Asdiscussedabove,
usersbringwiththemexpectationsofhowaneditionwillbe,shapedbythenormsand
traditionsof theirownparticular cultureof editing.Due to theirCastilian-language
background,manyusersofthedigitalCPSFwillbringcertainexpectations,basedon
other editions of medieval Castilian works. 318 Since, as Greetham has argued in
reference to Gabler’s Ulysses, 319 when user-expectations and the edition are
mismatched,theeditionandeditorareoftenperceivedbytheusertobeatfault,rather
than sparking the user to re-evaluate her preconceptions regarding some of the
318ItisworthnotingherethatIamprovidingatranslationwiththeaimofmeetingtheneedsofotherpotentialusersoftheedition.Thiswillbeexplainedinmoredetailbelow.319Greetham,TextualScholarship–AnIntroduction,p.354
108
editorialdecisionstaken.Oneofmycentrallinesofargumentisthataneditorshould
havethepotentialuser(s)oftheeditionconstantlyinmindwhenpreparinganedition,
andshould,therefore,haveanunderstandingofthegeneralcontextofeditinginthe
cultureofthemajorpartofthepotentialreadershipoftheedition.Thiswillallowthe
editortoanticipatesomeoftheexpectationsthattheusersarelikelytobringtothe
edition,andtoedit thetextaccordingly(this isnot tosay,however, that theeditor
shouldnotchallengethereaderinanyway,andonlyeditwithintheconfinesofthe
traditionofeditingtodate).Tothisend,thissubchapterwillprovideabriefoverview
ofthetheoryoftextualeditinginaCastilian-languagecontext,andwilllookatsomeof
the key scholars and research institutes in the area, outlining some of their most
relevanttheoreticalpublicationsandlinesofargumentation.320Thiswillallowmeto
considerthepreconceptionsandexpectationslikelytobeheldbymuchoftheintended
audienceformyedition.
1.4.1GermánOrdunaandSECRIT
DescribedbyAlanDeyermondas‘themostdistinguishedArgentinianmedievalistof
hisgeneration’,321and‘askilledandinfluentialpractitioneroftheausterebutessential
disciplines of textual criticism […] and codicology’322 , Germán Orduna was a key
320Suchachaptercouldalmostbelimitlessinlength,andmanyfinescholarsinthisareawillunfortunately,throughthenecessityforbrevity,bemissedout.IwillconcentrateonthosewhohavewrittenmanualsfortextualeditorsofmedievalCastiliantextsorfoundedresearchinstitutesforsucheditions,andeventhen,Iwillonlybeabletomentionasmallnumberofscholars.321AlanDeyermond,‘GermánOrduna(1926-1999)–ABritishView’,BulletinofHispanicStudies,78:2(2001),259-261,259,http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/000749000300078967[accessed04/09/2017]322Deyermond,259
109
scholarintheareaofeditingmedievaltextsinCastilian.JoséLuisMourewritesthat
hislegacyis‘inmenso’.323OrdunafoundedbothSECRIT(SeminariodeEdiciónyCrítica
Textual)andSECRIT’sjournalIncipit,thearticlesofwhichconcernediting,codicology
andtextualcriticismofSpanishandLatinAmericantexts,witha‘strongpreferencefor
medieval texts’.324Both SECRIT and Incipitare still running at the time ofwriting.
Presently, SECRIT is led by Leonardo Funes. SECRIT give their aim as ‘estudiar los
problemasymétodosdeediciónycríticadeltextodeobrasenespañoldelaPenínsula
y de América desde la Edad Media hasta nuestros días’, 325 and the institute has
publishedaseriesofcriticaleditions.326
In his 1991 articleEcdótica hispánica y el valor estemático de la historia del texto,
Ordunagivesabriefhistoryoftheapplicationofmethodsoftextualcriticism,witha
particularfocusonmedievalandGoldenAgetextsinCastilian.327Heexplainswhya
Lachmannian methodology can be attractive to editors, with its mathematical
reasoning;healsostatesthatitisnotsimplythemechanicalapplicationofstemmatic
ruleswhichproduces the edition, but rather the editor,whomust look also at the
historyofthetextitselfandthecarefulcollationofvariants.328
323JoséLuisMoure,‘GermánOrduna,(Unavidadedicadaalacríticatextual)’,inLeonardoFunesandJoséManuelLucíaMegías(editors)GermanOrduna–FundamentosdeCríticaTextual(Madrid:Arco/Libros,2005)pp.9-14,p.13324Deyermond,259325IBIICRITCONICET,SECRITIBIICRIT,http://www.iibicrit-conicet.gov.ar/[accessed09/09/2017]326IBIICRITCONICET,CategoryArchives:Edicionescríticas,http://www.iibicrit-conicet.gov.ar/wordpress/category/ediciones-criticas/[accessed09/09/2017]327Orduna,89-101328Orduna,99
110
In a book dedicated to hismemory, editors Funes and LucíaMegías have brought
together a series of articles and papers delivered by Orduna over the years, to
illustrate,asMourestatesinhisintroduction,whyOrduna‘esconsideradounodelos
padresdelacríticatextualhispánica’.329Asthefirstchaptertheyreproduceanarticle
takenfromthe1990volumeofIncipit.InthisarticlecanbeseenOrduna’sreasoning
regardingtheimportanceofastemmaasatool(andnotanendinitself)whencritically
editingtexts:
Elestemaesunmeroinstrumentodetrabajoalqueeleditoroellectoreruditorecurreparaajustarconsecuentementeunlugardevariantesoparajuzgarelcriterioaplicadoporeleditor.330
Hedescribeshowtheconceptofacriticaleditionasanabsolutegoal isnotalways
feasible,particularlyincaseswhereasingleoriginalcannotrealisticallybeimagined,
suchaslyricpoetry.Toillustratethis,heborrowsRamónMenéndezPidal’soft-cited
phrasethatthepoetryoftheromancero‘viveenvariantes’,331whichOrdunaexplains
with‘lavarianteessuvidamisma’.332Accordingtothislineofargument,itfollowsthat
whereanoriginal textcan be feasibly conceived, it is reasonable toaim to createa
criticaledition.Orduna’skeyargumentthroughoutthearticleisthatthereisasolid,
triedandtestedmethodologyforthecreationofcriticaleditions,basedonlogicand
mathematics,andthatitisthiswhichhasledtotheuseofcomputersintextualediting,
a newly up-and-coming method at the time of his writing. Like his point that the
stemmaisonlyatoolforediting,hearguesthatsotooarecomputers.Hestates,‘noes
329MoureinFunesandLucíaMegías,p.13330GermánOrduna,‘Laedicióncrítica’,IncipitX(1990)17-43,reproducedinFunesandLucíaMegías,p.19331RamónMenéndezPidal,RomanceroHispánico(Madrid:Espasa-Calpe,1953)p.40332Orduna,‘Laedicióncrítica’,inFunesandLucíaMegías,p.26
111
posibleautomatizartotalmentelaedicióncríticadeuntexto’.333Althoughitisalmost
thirty years sinceOrdunawrote thosewords, and electronic tools for editing have
advancedagreatdeal,thisfactremainstruetoday.
FunesandLucíaMegíasalsopresentapapergivenbyOrdunain1994ontheediting
ofhistoricaltextsinCastilian.334Forobviousreasonsthischapterismostrelevantto
thisthesis.Inthispaper,Ordunastatesplainlythat‘porlaproblemáticaqueplantean,
lostextoshistóricosconstituyenunrubroespecíficoenelcampodelaecdótica’.335The
author distinguishes between historical documents (‘cartas, documentos de
cancillería, documentos notariales, censos, informes’), and historical literature
(‘anales,cronicones,crónicas,historias’).336Hestatessimply,asifitwerefact,that‘La
“literaturahistórica”de textosenespañolnecesitaediciones críticas’.337Onlya few
hundredwordslaterhestatesthisopinionagain:‘reiteramosquelostextoshistóricos
encastellanorequierenhoyunaedicióncrítica’.338Thisis,however,dependentonthe
editor’sabilitytoconsultasmanywitnessesofthetextasnecessary,tocreateareliable
criticaledition–hecannotdothisifhedoesnothavethetime,thefinancesorthetools
todoso.Acriticaleditionbasedonincompleteinformationascouldbegarneredfrom
lookingatonlyasmallproportionoftheavailablewitnesseswouldbeunreliable,and
assuch,shouldbeavoidedwithintextualscholarship.Itisforthisreason,aswewill
333Orduna,‘Laedicióncrítica’,inFunesandLucíaMegías,p.38334GermánOrduna,‘Laedicióndetextoshistóricosenespañol’(Estadoactualdeltema,estudioseinvestigacionesarealizar),ActasdelCongresodelaLenguaEspañola,(ÁlcaladeHenares,InstitutoCervantes,1994),reproducedinFunesandLucíaMegías,pp.149-160335Orduna,‘Laedicióndetextoshistóricosenespañol’,p.151336Orduna,‘Laedicióndetextoshistóricosenespañol’,p.150337Orduna,‘Laedicióndetextoshistóricosenespañol’,p.155338Orduna,‘Laedicióndetextoshistóricosenespañol’,p.158
112
see below, that AengusWard has not provided a critical edition of the Estoria de
Espanna.
As if Orduna’s position on thematter could be read as unclear, he alsomakes the
statement that ‘una referencia’ of historicaldocuments – hedoesnotuse the term
‘edición’todescribeit–atapurelypalaeographiclevelis ‘inexcusable’.339Hepoints
outthatthereareahostofmanualsofhowtoexpandabbreviationsthathavebeen
createdbasedentirelyonofficialhistoricaldocuments.Givinganexceptiontotherule
asdocuments from theAlfonsine scriptorium, he calls fora specialpalaeographical
study of these, with transcription norms for use by the community of Alfonsine
editors.340
I agreewithOrduna thatapurelypalaeographic transcriptionofdocumentswould
havea limitedvalue,aboveall for thosewhicharedigitisedandfreelyavailable for
consultationontheweb,asagreatdealare,particularlynowthatdigitaleditorsare
abletotagtranscriptionsinawaythatallowstheusertochoosehowtheyvisualise
thetranscription.Thisis,ofcourse,basedonaworldofdigitaleditingthatwasinits
infancywhenOrdunamadethestatement in1994,andhegoesontorecognisethe
value of synoptic editions for some scholars, such as for historical linguists: ‘el
propósito’,hestates,‘esdesplegarlamateriallingüísticadeltextoenelprocesodesu
transmisión.Asíconsiderada,[…]esválidaaunqueseaincongruenteconlosmétodos
yobjectivos‘normales’deunaedicióncrítica’.341Hegoesontosaythatsuchanedition
339Orduna,‘Laedicióndetextoshistóricosenespañol’,p.150340Orduna,‘Laedicióndetextoshistóricosenespañol’,p.151341Orduna,‘Laedicióndetextoshistóricosenespañol’,p.154
113
couldalsobeusefulfordocumentssuchastheFueros,whichareimportantbothfor
theirhistoricalvalueandfortheirusefulnesstolinguisticstudy.342Thatsaid,healso
statesthatcreatingasynopticeditionofachronicle‘implicaunesfuerzosobrehumano
e imposible económicamente’.343Other than in special cases such as theFueros, he
arguesthatacontemporaryeditionshouldofferthe‘erudite’reader‘untextolegible,
precedidodeunacompleta informaciónsobre lahistoriadel texto,sustestimonios,
indices,glosarios,notaspertinentesylasvariantesútiles’.344PartofOrduna’spointis
valid,thatmakingasynopticeditionofachronicleisasignificanttask,butitisnotso
difficultastobeimpossible,superhuman,oreconomicallyunviable,particularlyinthe
ageofdigitalediting,andperhapsevenmoresointhefuture,withmethodssuchas
crowdsourcedtranscriptionorHTRtechnology.Whilstaprintsynopticeditionofa
chronicle,asofanytext,withseveral,ormanywitnesses,maybesofullofinformation
astorenderitverydifficulttouse,digitaltoolsnotdevelopedornotinwidespreaduse
duringOrduna’s time,canofferamoreuser-friendlyalternativeto traditionalprint
synoptic versions that are both usable, and can enable study of the writing and
rewriting of historical texts, which cannot be studied from single editions of one
manuscript,orofpurelycriticalcollatededitions.
1.4.2AlbertoBlecua
In1980,AlbertoBlecuapublishedaworkwhichhasbeendescribedbyOrdunaas‘lo
342Orduna,‘Laedicióndetextoshistóricosenespañol’,pp.153-154343Orduna,‘Laedicióndetextoshistóricosenespañol’,p.155344Orduna,‘Laedicióndetextoshistóricosenespañol’,p.155
114
que será el primer libro dedicado exclusivamente a estudiar los problemas
metodológicosque seplantean enel análisisde lasvariantesdeun textomedieval
españolconservadoenmásdedosmanuscritos’;345thiswashisLatransmisióntextual
deElcondeLucanor.346Fromthisworkcamehis1983Manualdecríticatextual,akey
resourceforanyfledglingeditoroftextsinCastilian,anddescribedbyLucíaMegíasas
‘unadelasherramientasmásútiles,unadelasfundamentalesparatodoaquelquese
dispongaaconocerlosrudimentos,lametodologíaylasfasesdelacríticatextual’.347
In thiswork, asdoesOrduna, theauthorargues strongly foreditions tobe critical.
LloydKasten,inhisreviewofBlecua’sManual,describesitas‘neo-Lachmannian’,348
andOrdunastatesthatitwasthisworkthat‘despertóelinterésdelosuniversitarios
españolessobrelametodologíaneolachmanniana’.349Foranexplanationofthisterm,
wecanlooktothedefinitionasprovidedbyJoséManuelFradejasRueda,andalsoby
OddEinarHaugenandMarinaBuzzoni.FradejasRuedastatesthattheprincipalidea
behindneolachmannianismis thereconstructionofa textascloseaspossible toan
authorial original.350 Haugen and Buzzoni explain that this editorial methodology
works on the basis of differences between witnesses being ‘variants’ rather than
‘errors’, and where ‘the critical edition is seen as a scientifically based working
345GermánOrduna,‘Ecdóticahispánicayelvalorestematicodelahistoriadeltexto’,RomancePhilology,45:1(Aug11991),89-101,90,https://search-proquest-com.ezproxyd.bham.ac.uk/docview/1296991154?accountid=8630[accessed04/09/2017]346AlbertoBlecua,LatransmisióntextualdeElcondeLucanor,(Barcelona:UniversidadAutónomadeBarcelona,1980)347LucíaMegías,‘Manuales’,120348LloydKasten,‘Review:ManualdecríticatextualbyAlbertoBlecua’,Hispania,no.68,vol.2(May1985),298-299,http://www.jstor.org/stable/342171[accessed17/08/2017],298349Orduna,‘Ecdóticahispánica’,91350JoséManuelFradejasRueda,Introducciónalaedicióndetextosmedievalescastellanos(Madrid:UniversidadNacionaldeEducaciónaDistancia,1991)p.22
115
hypothesis,notasanabsoluteentity’.351Blecuahimself,however,usestheterm‘error’,
andtheloadedlanguageweareaccustomedtoseeinginLachmannianediting:
Lacríticatextualeselartequetienecomofinpresentaruntextodepuradoenloposibledetodosaquelloselementosextrañosalautor.Deberáatender,enprimerlugar,aloserrorespropiosdelacopia.352
Blecuawritesindetailofthevarioustypesof‘error’thathearguesshouldberemoved
whencreatingacriticaledition353–heconcentratesonscribal‘errors’,devotingsome
ten pages to them;354in contrast, to non-scribal variants, which he terms ‘errores
ajenos al copista’ and describes as documentdamage leading to the loss ofwords,
phrasesandpassagesbyagentssuchasdamp,fire,censorship,andbookbinding,he
givesonlyaroundfourteenlines.355ForBlecua,toborrowHult’sterm,356thevillainof
the textual history of a givenwork is clearly the scribe. He goes on to argue that
medievalscribesoftextswritteninRomance,moresothanLatin,werewonttoemend
the texts theywereworkingon, according to their own linguistic, religious,moral,
politicalorliterary ideas:hearguesthisshowsa lackofscruplesonthesideof the
scribe,againshowinghisideologythatscribescouldbetextualvillains.Hearguesthat
thisisevenmorethecaseforchronicles,thescribesforwhich‘mantuvieronvivasu
obra poniéndola al día’. 357 As Kasten points out, Blecua objects to the automatic
351OddEinarHaugen,mostrecentlymodifiedbyMarinaBuzzoni,‘Neo-LachmannianPhilology’,Confluence,lastedited01/11/2015,https://wiki.hiit.fi/display/stemmatology/Neo-Lachmannian+Philology[accessed17/08/2017]352Blecua,Manualdecríticatextual,p.18353Blecua,Manualdecríticatextual,pp.17-30354Blecua,Manualdecríticatextual,pp.20-30355Blecua,Manualdecríticatextual,p.30356Hult,p.119357Blecua,Manualdecríticatextual,p.163
116
mechanicalmethodofdomHenryQuentin,358butrecognisestheneedforastemma
whencreatinga critical edition for the ‘securityandconfidence that it gives to the
editor’.359Thecontinuedrelevanceofsuchfindingstothepresentstudyisthatthey
informmeonthepreconceptionsandexpectationsthatmuchofmyintendedaudience
willbringtothedigitalCPSF.Thiscanhelptoinformmeonhowtoeditit,andwhat
featuresImaychoosetoinclude,takingintoaccounttheexpectationsofitspotential
users.
1.4.3PedroSánchez-PrietoBorja
Pedro Sánchez-Prieto Borja has an extensive list of publications of both medieval
philologyandtextualeditingofmedievaltextsinCastilian.Withinthislistishis1998
bookCómoeditarlostextosmedievales360which,likeBlecua’sManual,isimportantfor
editorsofmedieval texts inCastilian. In thisbookhestates that ‘porobjetivode la
críticatextualentendemoslareconstrucciónencuantoseapossible,deltextooriginal
delautor’,361arguingthatabest-textapproachisincompatiblewithcriticalediting.362
Healsopointsout that the latterapproachhasbeenused inagreatdealof textual
editingofmedievalCastilian,andjustifiedbytheeditorswithits‘consabidorótulodel
358ForanexplanationofDomQuentin’smethod,thereaderisdirectedto:EdwardKennardRand,‘DomQuentin’sMemoiroftheVulgate’,TheHarvardTheologicalReview,No.17,Vol.2(July1924)197-264,http://www.jstor.org/stable/1507899,[accessed19/08/2017]359Kasten,p.298360PedroSánchez-PrietoBorja,Cómoeditarlostextosmedievales:Criteriosparasupresentacióngráfica(Madrid:ArcoLibros1998)361Sánchez-PrietoBorja,Cómoeditarlostextosmedievales,p.57362Sánchez-PrietoBorja,Cómoeditarlostextosmedievales,p.55
117
‘respeto’o‘fidelidadalmanuscrito’.363Hestates,‘sicuantomásparecidaalmanuscrito
mejoreslaedición,laediciónpreferibleseríasiemprelapaleográfica,omejoraún,una
reproduccióngráfica.’364Sánchez-PrietoBorja,however,advocatesprovidingacritical
edition.Havingmadeclearhisargumentsforthecriticaleditingofmedievaltexts,he
dedicatessomehundredpages,aroundhalfthebook,to‘unapropuestaconcretade
presentacióngráficadetextosmedievalescríticamenteeditados’.365Herehegives,as
could be expected, concrete rules for editing, with each rule fully explained and
justified,withexamples.Forthefledglingeditor,suchaguideisdense–forgoodand
forbad;thereaderfindsagreatdepthofjustificationandreasoningforeachproposal,
althoughtheleveltowhichthisisprovidedislikelytobeoff-puttingtotheuninitiated.
Inhis2011bookLaedicióndetextosespañolesmedievalesyclásicos,Sánchez-Prieto
Borjagivesaseriesofpreliminarystatements.Ofthese,thefirstreads:
La edición crítica, en la que el texto se establece tras el examen de toda latradicióntextual,eslaquemejorsatisfacelasexpectativasdelinvestigador.366
Theimplicationhere,basedonbothhiswordsandtheplacementoftheabovesentence
withintherestofthework,isthatforSánchez-PrietoBorja,atrueeditionisacritical
one.Keytotheabovephraseisthatheadvocatesthatcriticaleditionsshouldtakeinto
accountallofthetextualtradition.ThisbringsusbacktotheEstoriaDigital,which,as
we will see later, is based on five of the forty witnesses of the Estoria. There is,
therefore,nocriticaleditionprovidedatthistime.
363Sánchez-PrietoBorja,Cómoeditarlostextosmedievales,pp.54-55364Sánchez-PrietoBorja,Cómoeditarlostextosmedievales,p.56365Sánchez-PrietoBorja,Cómoeditarlostextosmedievales,pp.104-198366PedroSánchez-PrietoBorja,Laedicióndetextosespañolesmedievalesyclásicos:Criteriosdepresentacióngráfica(SanMillandelaCogolla:Cilengua,2011)p.15
118
Sánchez-PrietoBorjagoesontostatehisbeliefsthatthepresentationofthecritical
editionshouldfacilitatereading,andshouldbearinmindtheproposedreaderofthe
edition, aswell as the language and orthography ofwhat he terms the ‘lengua de
llegada’,inhiscase,andinthecaseofthisthesis,modernSpanish.Therethenfollows
aseriesofinstructionsforeditorsofhowtopresentcriticaleditions,suchashowto
signaltheexpansionofanabbreviation:forinstance,hesuggeststhatdigitaleditions
may use angular brackets (< >), but that in the final presentation these should be
substitutedforitalics.367Asastarkcontrasttohis1998book,thistextiswrittenasa
seriesofinstructions,whichinthislaterbookarenotgenerallyexplainedorjustified
withinthetext.Thatsaid,twoofhispointsshowthecommonsenseandsolidtheory
behindhisdirections:thateditinginthiswayfacilitatesthereadingofthetext,andis
favourablewhen the texts are being dealtwith electronically.368The secondmajor
sectionofthisbookisanearlierversionoftheCHARTA(CorpusHispánicoyAmericano
enlaRed:TextosAntiguos),‘criteriosdeedición’(2011inthisbook,ratherthan2013
aspublishedonlinebyCHARTA)whichwillbedealtwithinthesectionbelowofthis
chapter.
1.4.4CHARTA
LedbyPedroSánchez-PrietoBorja,CHARTAisaglobalprojectthatiscreatingacorpus
367Sánchez-PrietoBorja,Laedicióndetextosespañolesmedievales,p.17368Sánchez-PrietoBorja,Laedicióndetextosespañolesmedievales,p.18
119
of editions and linguistic analysis of twelfth- to nineteenth-century documents in
Spanish.369SincethereareseveralteamsofscholarsworkingwithinCHARTA,whoare
basedinplacesgeographicallydistantfromoneanother,andwhoworkontextsfrom
awiderangeoflocationsandtimeperiods,theCHARTA‘Criteriosdeedición’areboth
fundamentalandcomprehensive.370Foreachdocument,threeversionsoftheedition
areproducedandjustifiedinthefollowingway:(i)afacsimile,sothatusersmayverify
editorial readings, and carry out diplomatic or palaeographic studies; (ii) a
palaeographictranscription;whichhighlightsthegraphicsystemandallowsthestudy
ofthephoneticevolutionofletters;and(iii)acriticalpresentationtofacilitatereading;
thisthirdversion,theystate,isthemostadequatefromwhichtostudymorphology
and syntax, and is the style of edition favoured by historians.371They explain the
reasonfortheirthree-prongedapproachtoediting:‘estaediciónmultiplesejustifica
porlaimposibilidaddeproporcionarconunasolatodalainformaciónqueelestudioso
demanda’.372AsCHARTApointout,thesetripleversioneditionslendthemselvesmost
easilytodigitaleditions,althoughtheygiveoneexampleofaneditioninthisstyleina
traditionalbookform,ofwhichdetailscanbefoundintheir‘Criteriosdeedición’.373It
isworthnotingherethatCHARTAdonothierarchisetheversionsoftheedition,and
makeclear thedifferentusesofeachto fulfil theneedsofdifferentpotentialusers,
including,andthistheyputinboldtypeontheirhomepage,non-specialists.374
369RedCHARTA,CorpusHispánicoyAmericanoenlaRed:TextosAntiguos,(2015)http://www.corpuscharta.es/[accessed19/08/2017]370RedCHARTA,CriteriosdeCHARTA,http://www.corpuscharta.es/[accessed19/08/2017]371RedCHARTA,Criteriosdeedicióndedocumentoshispánicos(orígenes-sigloXIX)delaredinternacionalCHARTA(versiondatedApril2013)p.6[mytranslation];PedroSánchez-PrietoBorjahaspublishedanearlierversionoftheseCriteriosinhisaforecited2011book.372RedCHARTA,Criteriosdeedición,p.6373RedCHARTA,Criteriosdeedición,p.6374RedCHARTA,CriteriosdeCHARTA(within‘leermás’),
120
CHARTA scholar Paul Spence has stated that the triple-access presentation of
documents as according to the CHARTA guidelines is ‘un paso importante en la
direccióndelmanejodigitalalintentardaracadacaso filológicounproto-marcado
específicoquepuedaserinterpretadoporserhumanoymáquinaalavez’.375However,
asbrieflynotedabove,hegoesontocriticisethenetwork’sextendeduseofitalicsto
mark all editorial intervention, arguing that their use dates from the age of print
editing,whereaneditorwasboundbythepossibilitiesofprintvisualisationwhilst
remainingeconomicallyviable;adigitaleditorisnotlimitedinthesameway,socould
highlight different editorial interventions using different marks. The result of this
wouldbethatthesemarkscouldbereadbyamachine,asunlikeahuman,computers
cannotdifferentiatebetweeneditorialinterventionswhenitalicsareusedforsomany
different processes. 376 As digital editors of prose works in medieval Castilian,
CHARTA’sapproachisworthbearinginmind,inordertoinformmyownpractice.Itis
highlylikelythatthemorescholarlyusersofmyeditionwillbeaccustomedtoCHARTA
editions, and will, therefore, bring with them certain expectations based on these
editions.AlsohighlyrelevantforthisthesisandthedigitalCPSFisSpence’scomments
ontheuseofitalicsindigitalediting.IwillreturntothispointinChapterThree.
375Spence,‘Sieteretos’,153-181,156376Spence,‘Sieteretos’,156
121
1.4.5JoséManuelFradejasRueda
JoséManuelFradejasRueda,mentionedaboveas theprojectdirectorof thedigital
SietePartidas,hasadaptedandupdatedsomepartsofhis1991bookIntroducciónala
edición de textos medievales castellanos 377 as a blog entitled Crítica Textual para
Dummies.378Thesiteincludesabibliographyforworksonthetopicoftextualcriticism
withapreferenceforthoserelatedtotheCastiliancontext,butnotrestrictedtothese.
Thereisalsoashortglossaryoftermsthatwouldbehelpfulforinexperiencedtextual
editors.Theblogpostsonthesitearewritteninaclearway,withnopriorknowledge
assumed, and dealwith topics such as an explanation of terms used (for example,
‘olim’), of technical aspects such as foliation, running headers, and descriptions of
manuscripts.
Thebook,likethewebsite,iswrittenintheauthor’shabitualdidacticstyle,withhis
stated aimbeing ‘guiar, llevar de lamano en los primerospasos, indicando qué se
puedehacerycómo;[…]Lodemássoloseobtendráconlapráctica’.379UnlikeOrduna,
Blecua and Sánchez-Prieto Borja, where there are opposing approaches, Fradejas
Ruedadoesnotgiveaprescriptiveopinionofhoweditorsshouldedit,butratheris
descriptive,andsimplyoutlinesthemainargumentsofotherscholars.Forexample,
writingoncriticaleditions,FradejasRuedabeginsbystatingthatacriticaledition‘es
aquella que trata de ofrecer el prototipoo arquetipo, el texto ideal, que se supone
377FradejasRueda,Introducción378JoséManuelFradejasRueda,CríticaTextualparaDummies,lastupdated14thMay2015,ecdotica.hypotheses.org[accessed07/09/2017]379FradejasRueda,Introducción,p.12
122
originaldelautor’.380Hethendescribesthetwomainapproachestocriticaleditions,
usingtheterminologyofFranciscoLópezEstrada:heexplainsthat‘laedicióncrítica
integral’isonewhichaimstocombineallextantwitnessestocreateahypothesisof
thearchetypaltext;‘laedicióncríticasingular’istheapproachfavouredbyfollowers
of Bédier, and either improves the text of a single extantwitness, or chooses one
witness and improves this, using information gathered from the other extant
witnesses.381Whereotherscholarsmaythenargueforonestyleofeditingandagainst
another,FradejasRuedadoesnotdo thishere:havingoutlinedbothapproaches to
editinghethenmovesontopresentingthenext topic. Inothercases,however,and
wheretheapproachismorestraightforwardandacceptedbyscholarsfromallschools
ofediting(oratleastthemajority),FradejasRuedaiscleareringivinghisopinion.For
instance, ‘el editor debe ofrecer la lista completa de todos los manuscriptos y
fragmentos que se conocen. Ha de ordenarlos alfabéticamente según las siglas
asignadas’.382
The style throughout Fradejas Rueda’s book andwebsite is clear and educational,
making the material accessible to all interested readers, and in particular
inexperienced editors, and for whom both Sánchez-Prieto Borja’s 1998 work and
Blecua’s1983workmayfeeltoodauntingatfirst.ItisobviousthatFradejasRueda’s
intended audience is the interested but uninitiated, and in particular university
students.AsMaríaMorráspointsoutinherreviewofthebook,sometimes,technical
380FradejasRueda,Introducción,p.47381FradejasRueda,Introducción,p.47;terminologyfromFranciscoLópezEstrada,Introducciónalaliteraturamedievalespañola,(Madrid:Gredos,1979)p.60382FradejasRueda,Introducciónp.69;emphasismine.
123
languageisexplainedonlyinthesecondorthirdsectionofthebook,andaglossaryof
termswouldcertainlyhavebeenusefulfortheintendedaudience.383This,theauthor
hasrectifiedinhiswebsite,which,asmentionedabove,includesaglossary.Updating
the book as a series of blog posts is an interesting and novelway to reach a new
generationoftextualeditorsandstudentsofthesubject,aswellasotherinterested
readers.
1.4.6HSMS
TheHispanicSeminary ofMedieval Studies (HSMS)was founded by JohnNitti and
LloydKasten at theUniversity ofWisconsin-Madison.Theirwebsite gives nomore
specificdateforthisthan‘inthe1970s’.Sincethen,theHSMShas‘becomeoneofthe
most importantpublishersofmaterial inHispanomedievalism’.384TheHSMS’smain
projectwastheDictionaryoftheOldSpanishLanguage(DOSL).Thisnecessitatedthe
creationofadatabankofmachine-readabletranscriptions,whichwouldbeusedto
providelexicalitemsfortheDictionary.Thefirstmachine-readabletranscriptionthey
madeavailablewasin1978onmicrofiche.ThiswasTheConcordancesandTextsofthe
RoyalScriptoriumManuscriptsofAlfonsoX.This,theyexplain,wasthefirstintheTexts
andConcordancesseries,whichnowcontainsaround500texts.In1997theybeganto
offertheseriesonCD-Rom,and2005theystartedworkonanonline,fully-interactive
383MaríaMorrás,‘ReviewofJoséManuelFradejasRueda,Introducciónalaedicióncríticadetextosmedievalescastellanos’,RomancePhilology,48.3,(1Feb1995)317-322,319,https://search-proquest-com.ezproxye.bham.ac.uk/docview/1296993962?accountid=8630[accessed15/09/2017]384HSMS,HSMSHome,http://www.hispanicseminary.org/index-en.htm[accessed15/09/2017]
124
version.TheProseWorksofAlfonsoXelSabiowasmadeavailableonlinein2011.385
SincethetranscriptionsfortheDOSLwerecarriedoutbymanyscholars,in1977the
HSMSpublishedtheirfirstManualofManuscriptTranscriptionfortheDictionaryofthe
OldSpanishLanguage.386Themostrecentedition,thefifthedition,isavailableonline
on the HSMS website. 387 The nature of the DOSL means that the HSMS corpora
available online are transcriptions and concordances based on onemanuscript for
each work. As Orduna points out, the HSMS therefore produce Bédierist editions
withoutstatingso.388
TheHSMStranscriptionandconcordanceswereusedextensively,inparticularlyinthe
early days of transcription for theEstoria Digital for queries, and to study various
topics for project blog posts and papers delivered by project team members at
conferences.Furthermore,withtheknowledgeandpermissionoftheteambehindthe
HSMS,theiroriginaltranscriptionswerereworkedtoprovidethebasetextusedinthe
EstoriaDigital.Asisdiscussedmorefullybelow,thefirststepinconvertingtheHSMS
transcriptions for use in thepreparationof theEstoriaDigitalwas to strip out the
HSMStagsandleaveabaretext,whichwecheckedwhen‘transcribing’,whichreally
meantaddinginourownXMLtagging.AsasubsetoftheEstoriaDigital,butnotbound
385HSMS,DigitalLibraryofOldSpanishTexts,http://www.hispanicseminary.org/textconc-en.htm[accessed15/09/2017]386KennethBuelowandDavidMackenzie,ManualofManuscriptTranscriptionfortheDictionaryoftheOldSpanishLanguage(MadisonWisconsin:HSMS,1977)387RayHarris-Northall,ManualofManuscriptTranscriptionfortheDictionaryoftheOldSpanishLanguage,5thedition(Revisedandexpanded)(MadisonWisconsin:HSMS,1997)http://www.hispanicseminary.org/manual/HSMS-manual.pdf[accessed15/09/2017]388GermánOrduna,Ecdótica–Problemáticadelaedicióndetextos(Kassel:EditionReichenberger,2000)p.73
125
bytheeditorialdecisionstakenaspartofit,mydigitalCPSFalsousesthebarebase
textpreparedfromtheHSMStranscriptions.
1.4.7Conclusion
Althoughthishasbeenonlyabriefoverviewofsomeoftheworkofkeyscholarsand
researchinstitutesinvolvedintheeditingofmedievaltextsinCastilian,andfarfrom
exhaustive,itispossibletonotethatweoftenseekeyscholarsinthearea(Orduna,
Blecua,Sánchez-PrietoBorja)givingarguments for thepreparationofacritical text
aimingtoproposeahypothesis for thelostoriginal text,apart frominveryspecific
cases. This reminds us of LucíaMegías’ earlier-cited statement that ‘no es posible
interpreterlasobrasdenuestropasadosiantesnocontamosconun‘texto’,siantesno
hemosanalizadolatransmisióndelosmismosparasaberdiferenciarentreelsonido
inicialyel‘ruido’quelohamodificadoatravésdelossiglos’.389Wardalsonotesthe
prominenceofcriticaleditionsfortextsinMedievalCastilianwhenhestates:
CriticaleditingofmedievalPeninsulartextshasalonghistory…inmorerecentyears, andexemplified firstby theworkofAlbertoBlecuaandextensivelybytheSECRITteaminBuenosAires,amoreLachmannianapproach, heavily influenced by Italian textual criticism has come togreaterprominence.390
ItfollowsthatacommonexpectationforscholarlyusersofeditionsmedievalCastilian
proseisthattherewillbeacriticaledition,basedonallextantwitnesses,particularly
389LucíaMegías,‘Manuales’,118390AengusWard,‘TheEstoriadeEspannaDigital:collatingmedievalprose–challenges...andmorechallenges.’DigitalPhilology7.1(Spring2018)7-34,8
126
wherechroniclesareconcerned.Thisshouldbeborneinmindwhenconsideringthe
editorialdecisionstobetakenforthepreparationofthedigitalCPSF,ifmyeditionis
tofulfil itsobjectiveofmeetingtheneedsandexpectationsofmanyofmypotential
users.
Wardalsonotesthattodate,theneo-Lachmannianapproachwecanobserveinmany
oftheeditionsofPeninsulartextsproducedinSpanish-languagecontextshaslargely
been informed by the possibilities and constraints of print culture.391This is now
changing,aswefindnewtechnologybeingusedforandbythesedigitaleditions.We
canalsoseeinthisbriefoverviewofeditinganddigitaleditingofmedievaltextsina
Castilian-languageculture,thatwhilstmanyscholarsstillargueforacriticaledition,
several(Orduna,SECRIT,Sánchez-PrietoBorja,CHARTA)alsostatetheirrecognition
for the value of other typesof edition for the purposes of specific users. Since the
technologyavailablenowenablesdigitaleditionstocomprisemorethanoneversion,
asinCHARTA’striple-accesspresentation,itstandstoreasonthatusersoftheedition
whoareaccustomedtousingCHARTA-produceddigitaleditionswillalsoexpectother
digitaleditionstohaveasimilarfeaturewherepossible.Again,thisshouldbebornein
mindwhencreatingthedigitalCPSF,andwillinformthedecisionsImake.
***
391Ward,‘TheEstoriadeEspannaDigital:collatingmedievalprose’,8
127
To this point I have explored the issues of editing, then digital editing, editing
manuscript prose, and then editing manuscript prose in Castilian, all in order to
provide a theoretical foundation on which to base my digital CPSF, a medieval
chroniclewritteninvernacularprose.ThiswillformpartoftheEstoriaDigital,which
is also of a medieval chronicle written in vernacular prose (both are written in
MedievalCastilian).Myeditionwill,however,alsofunctionseparatelyinitsownright,
separatefromtheEstoriaDigital,andwillhavepointsofdifference.Toconcludethe
theoreticalbasisformyeditionIwilluseacasestudyofapublisheddigitaleditionof
amedievalchronicleinvernacularprose:theOnlineFroissart.
1.5CaseStudy:TheOnlineFroissartProject
TheOnline Froissart is an edition of some of the fourteenth-centuryChroniques of
chroniclerandwriterJeanFroissart(1337-1405),writteninvernacularprose,Middle
French. 392 Led by Peter Ainsworth (University of Sheffield) and Godried Croenen
(UniversityofLiverpool),theOnlineFroissartProject(OFP)hasbeenchosenasacase
studyforthisthesisbecauseofthesimilaritiesbetweenit,theEstoriaDigital,andmy
digitalCPSF.
WitnessesoftheEstoriadeEspanna,theCPSFandtheChroniquesareextantinseveral
manuscriptscomprisingvariousversionsofeachrespectively,andwhicharebasedin
392AinsworthandCroenen,‘TheOnlineFroissart’
128
severallibrariesworldwide,meaningthatpriortothedigitaleditionsbeingdiscussed
inthisthesisithasbeendifficultforscholarstocompareversionsofthemanuscripts.
ThesubjectmatteroftheEstoriaDigital,theCPSF,andtheChroniquesisnotdissimilar
sinceallarechronicles,andholdinterestforscholarsofhistoryandhistoriography,
language,literatureandlinguistics,aswellastopicssuchasbookproduction.Allthree
projectshavecreateddigitaleditionswithadditionalonlinetools,includingviewable
manuscripttranscriptions,viewable(orhyperlinked)high-qualitydigitalimagesofthe
manuscripts, search functions, onomastic indices, a collation, and manuscript
descriptions.Becauseofthesereasons,theeditorsoftheOnlineFroissartencountered
similarissuestothoseencounteredbytheEstoriateam,andbyextensionbyme,when
preparing thedigitalCPSF,making theOFP a useful case study toexamine, tohelp
shapethetheoreticalbasisuponwhichIhavecreatedthedigitalCPSF.However,this
isnottosaythatIhaveblindlyfollowedanyoftheeditorialdecisionsorjudgments
takenineithertheEstoriaDigitalortheOFP,butratherstudyingtheOFP,andbeing
partoftheEstoriateam,hasallowedmetoseewhereIcouldfollowtheirlead,and
whereIfeltIshouldtakedifferenteditorialdecisions.
Theoriginalphaseof theOFPwas fundedbytheAHRCbetween2007and2010.393
Followingthisprimaryphase,furthertranscriptionworkhasbeencompleted,someof
which is now available online as part of the edition. Some114manuscripts of the
Chroniqueshavebeentranscribed;somearecompletemanuscripts,whileothersare
393MoreinformationabouttheprojectthanIhavebeenabletoreproducehereisavailableonthehomepageoftheOnlineFroissartProject:https://www.hrionline.ac.uk/onlinefroissart/index.jsp[accessed26/06/2017]
129
incompleteorfragmentary.TheOFPalsocontainstranscriptionsofafifteenth-century
editionofthework.394
The transcriptions in theOnlineFroissart are not strictlydiplomaticof anyoriginal
manuscript,theydonotgivedetailsofabbreviationsinanymanuscript,andnordo
theyseektoreproducetheword-spacingofthemanuscripts.Theeditorsstateintheir
descriptionoftheeditorialpolicythattheaimofthetranscriptionsisto‘allowusers
easy access to the texts of every individual witness that we have been able to
transcribe’.395Theygoontostatethatoneofthemajorfeaturesoftheedition’swebsite
istheabilitytoviewsimultaneouslytranscriptionsofseveralwitnessesofthesame
sentence or passage, which allows users to easily compare thewitnesses, whilst a
criticaleditionmayomitsuchdetails.Clearhere,istheprivilegingbytheeditorsofthe
Online Froissart, of the quantity of transcriptions over detail: this decision allowed
them to transcribe 114manuscripts (bearing inmind that some are incompleteor
fragmentary),whilstonlyfivehavebeentranscribedfortheEstoriaDigital.Thisisa
verydifferentmethodology,andhasimplicationsontheusefulnessofeachrespective
editionforspecificusers,andthereforeontheaudienceeacheditionislikelytodraw.
As long as the implications of such editorial decisions are taking knowingly by the
editor,andtheeditioncreatedisabletoservemostoftheneedsofmostoftheintended
audience,bothmethodologiescanbeconsideredvalid,giventhattheyservedifferent
purposes.
394AinsworthandCroenen,‘TheOnlineFroissart’395AinsworthandCroenen,‘EditorialPolicy’,https://www.hrionline.ac.uk/onlinefroissart/index.jsp[accessed21/06/2017]
130
In their descriptionof their editorialpolicy, the editors of theOFP state they have
introducedasmallnumberofdiacriticsintothetranscriptions,followinga‘light-touch’
approach,solelywhentheaimofthediacriticistofacilitatereading,andtoenablethe
usertobetterunderstandthetext,whilstavoidingcomplicatingthetranscription.396
Word-spacing,forreasonsofcollation,andpunctuationandcapitalisation,theeditors
explain,followmodernFrenchusage.Abbreviationsaregenerallyexpanded,andtext
is supplied in circumstances of manuscript damage or where there is an ‘obvious
mistake’.Sucheditorialdecisionshavebeentakenconsciously,fortheintendedtarget
audienceoftheedition:historiansandliteraryscholars,397andrendertheeditionless
usefulforpalaeographersandhistoricallinguists.Italsoraisesthequestionofwhois
qualified todecidewhat constitutesan ‘obviousmistake’: theeditorsdescribe such
mistakesas‘anomittedwordorphrase,wrongorbadlycorruptedname,orincorrect
verbform’,398andthefinaleditionretainsboththeoriginalandtheeditoriallysupplied
correction.Makingajudgementthatsomethinginamanuscripttextisanerror,scribal
orotherwise–intheeditors’listofexamplesoftypesoferrorsalmostallarelikelyto
bescribal–istowardstheLachmannianendoftheeditorialcontinuum,wherescribal
changesareconsideredcorruptionstotheoriginaltext.However,retainingboththe
original and supplied correction allows a user to clearly see where a modern
emendationhasbeenmade,andtheycanchoosetousetheoriginalortheemendation.
Thisdoes,however,createagreatdealofworkatthetaggingstage,whichtheeditors
oftheOFPhaveavoided,preferringinsteadtoprivilegequantityoftranscriptionsover
396AinsworthandCroenen,‘EditorialPolicy’397GodfriedCroenenandNatashaRomanova,TheOnlineFroissartProject:Manualfortranscriptionandmarkup,Version1.2(July2010)http://pcwww.liverpool.ac.uk/~gcroenen/Guidelines.pdf[accessed26/06/2017]p.6398AinsworthandCroenen,‘EditorialPolicy’
131
detail,asexplainedabove.Itisworthnotingthattheeditorialemendationsarebased
onother,closelyrelatedwitnesses.399SincethewholeethosoftheOFPistobringthe
Chroniquestoawideaudienceofhistoriansandliteraryscholarsandfacilitatetheir
understanding,itcanbeunderstoodthatthedecisiontojudgeandcorrecterrorsfits
thisstyleofeditionandtheperceivedrequirementsoftheintendedtargetaudience.A
user wishing to access the textwithout this editorial intervention can consult the
imagesoftheoriginalmanuscript,manyofwhichareviewableaspartoftheedition,400
andcanbeviewedwhilstsimultaneouslyviewingthefolio’stranscription.401
AsexplainedinthetranscriptionguidelinesoftheOFP,thecorpusbeingtranscribedis
so large that the transcriptions containminimal palaeographical and orthographic
minutiaebecauseofthetrade-offbetweentimeandeffort,andtheperceivedpayoffof
such an investment, bearing in mind the target audience of the edition. Those
particularly interested inthe linguistic featuresomitted fromthetranscriptionsare
directedtoviewthemanuscriptimages.Inthisway,thetranscriptionsoftheOFPshare
featureswithwhatwould usually be expected from amodern critical edition, and
reflectRobinson’safore-citedcomment,thatalthoughintheoryadigitaleditioncan
include everything, and is limited only by the editor’s imagination, in reality ‘our
resources are finite, and require us to choose where we place our effort’. 402 The
objectiveof adigitaleditionhastobetoservetheperceivedneedsof the intended
399AinsworthandCroenen,‘EditorialPolicy’400AinsworthandCroenen,‘InventoryofImages’,https://www.hrionline.ac.uk/onlinefroissart/apparatus.jsp?type=context&context=inventory_of_images,[accessed04/07/2017]401AinsworthandCroenen,‘InventoryofImages’402Robinson,‘TowardsaTheoryofDigitalEditions’,106
132
audience,andnotsimplythedesiresoftheeditor,anditisneitherpracticalnoruseful
toincludeeveryeditorialpossibilityinanedition.Decidingwhattoincludeandwhat
toomitfromadigitaleditionisatthecruxofwhatdigitaleditingis.
TheOFPcontainsasignificantsupplementarymaterial,whichexplainstheeditionand
givesinformationtotheuseroftheedition.Awiderangeofaspectsisincluded,such
astechnicaldetailsofthecamerasandlensesusedtodigitisesomeofthematerialin
the edition, explanations of the transcriptionand translation policies, a glossary of
MiddleFrench,andessaysonFroissarthimself,themanuscriptsandimages,andthe
context of their production. A key aspect of this supplementary material is that
although it is technicallydetailedandcorrect, theway it iswritten is inclusiveand
clear,socouldbeusedbybothexpertFroissartscholarsandinterestedamateurs.In
thiswaythetargetaudienceof theedition iswidenedandmademore inclusive.By
contrast,neithertheEstoriaDigitalnorthedigitalCPSFcontainsuchawiderangeof
supplementarymaterial.Thisisbecauseoftheever-presenttrade-offbetweendetail
and quantity, within the confines of time and money. As above, providing such a
decision has been taken in the knowledge of the implications it will have on the
usefulnessoftheeditionandtheaudienceitislikelytodraw(andthereforeshouldaim
toserve),bothapproachesareequallyvalid.
The transcription of the text in the Online Froissart is displayed in black or red,
mirroringtheblackorredinkofthemanuscript,andthereareseveralhyperlinksin
the transcription, shown in blue text. These link to the entries of the edition’s
onomasticindex,givingtheusermoreinformationaboutpersons,placesandevents
133
thatappearinthemanuscripttext.Clickingthehyperlinkdisplaysinformationonthe
entry as a box that appears uponmousing over. Both of these features alsowork
towardswidening the potential audience of the edition, andmake the information
containedintheeditionmoreaccessibletonon-experts.Unfortunately,whenviewing
the transcription alongside the image, there is no explanatory information in the
mouse-overbox,justalinktotheindexentryonaseparatepageoftheedition.This
meansthatausercannotaccesstheinformationintheindexwithoutdisturbingtheir
readingofthetranscription,somewhatmissingthepointofhyperlinkinginthisway.
ItwasthiswhichinformedmyowndecisionwhenpreparingthedigitalCPSF,thatto
avoiddisruptingtheflowofreading,usersshouldbeabletoaccessinformationwhich
wouldoftenhavebeenincludedinfootnotesinprinteditionswithoutleavingthepage
displayingthetranscription,inthesamewaythatfootnotescanbereadalongsidethe
maintextofapage,whilstendnotesdisrupttheflowofreading.
Iwillreturntoseveraloftheseeditorialdecisionslaterinthethesis,inthediscussion
ofmyownedition,whereIwillmakecleartheirinfluenceonthedigitalCPSF,including
wheretheirinfluencehasledtoaconsciousdecisiontonotfollowvariousaspectsof
theOFP.
***
134
1.6Chapterconclusion
Theaimthroughoutthischapterhasbeentostudythehistory,theoreticalcontextand
practiceofdigitaleditingmanuscriptproseinCastilianinordertoprovideasolidbasis
onwhichtoplacethedigitalCPSF.Aswellasprovidingageneral,theoreticaloverview,
I have shown how users’ expectations from an edition are based heavily on the
editorialbackgroundtheyareusedto,whichisitselfbasedonthehistoryofeditingin
themodernage,andwhichvariesbetweencultures.Thisbackgroundwillinformhow
theeditionisbothperceivedandthereforeif,andtowhatextent,itisused;becauseof
this, historical and cultural notions of editing should be considered carefully, and
cateredfor,whenpreparinganedition.Ialsoshowedthemajordifferencesbetween
digitalandprinteditions,since,giventhatbothtimeandmoneyarefinite,aneditor
shouldbeawareoftheseinordertomakeinformeddecisionsaboutwhattoincludein
heredition,basedontherealmsofpossibility.Theeditorshouldalwaysconsiderthat
suchdecisionsatthepointofpreparingtheeditionwillaffect,andcyclically,shouldbe
affectedby,whocanandwillwanttousetheeditionandhow.Inshort,theaudience’s
needsandexpectationsshouldinformthepreparationoftheedition.Aneditorisnot,
however, completely bound by convention and tradition, as this would stifle
innovation.
Having made clear the theoretical context of digitally editing medieval prose in
Castilian,andhowtheseaffectthepreparationanduseofanedition,Iwillnowlook
morespecificallytothebackgroundandcontextofthetexttobeeditedinthepresent
thesis.Thistooiskeyinformationforeditors,sinceitisthenatureofthetextitself,its
135
historyandsignificancethatwillhavethemostimpactonwhowantstouseedition
andwhatfor–howtheyactuallycanusetheeditionisdeterminedbydecisionstaken
asdescribedinChapterOne,soalthoughthesetwochaptersareseparate,theyreally
informoneanother.Giventhateditionsare(usually)madetobeused,andnotsimply
tofulfiltheneedsoftheeditor’sego,therequirementsoftheusershouldbeparamount
whenpreparinganedition.Inordertoprovideasolidhistoricalandcontextualbasis
forthedigitalCPSF,IwillfirstlookmorewidelytotheAlfonsineoeuvre,giventhat,as
Iwillexplainbelow, theCrónica ispost-Alfonsine,and is thereforebestunderstood
whenonehasgraspedthehistoryandcontextoftheAlfonsineoeuvre first.Itisthis
topicwhichwillformChapterTwo.
136
CHAPTERTWOTHEESTORIADEESPANNA:TEXTANDCONTEXT
2.0.1Chapterintroduction
Theprimaryobjectiveof this thesis is toexaminethetheoryandpracticeofdigital
editing,andinparticularhowourchoicesasdigitaleditorsaffectandareaffectedby
thepotentialreadershipoftheedition;inordertoachievethis,Iwillpresentasacase
studymyowndigitaleditionoftheCrónicaparticulardeSanFernando,theanalysisof
whichisthesecondaryobjectiveofthiswork.Iwillcreateandanalyseadigitaledition
oftheCrónicaparticulardeSanFernando.InChapterOneIlookedathowprintand
digitaleditionsdiffer,andhowdifferenteditorialculturesandtraditionsaffecthow
users expect or hope to use digital editions. I focussed onmedieval prose texts in
Castilian,andthedigitaleditingof these. Iwillnowlookataspecificworkandthe
extent towhich itshistory,circumstancesandtextual transmissionmightaffectnot
onlytheeditorialdecisionsbutalsothewaytheeditionwillbereceivedbyitsusers.
Whilsteditorsdonotnecessarilyhavetobeexperts in thetextprior tostartingan
edition,theyshouldrememberthatsomeoftheiruserswillbe,andwillwanttouse
the edition they create for close study. Other users will be non-experts, and their
expectationsandrequirementsoftheeditionwilldiffergreatly.Ifwe,aseditors,hope
tofulfil,asbestwecan,therequirementsofasmanyofourusersaspossible,weneed
toknowwhatitislikelythatourusers,includingexpertsinthetext,willwanttofind
inouredition.Aneditormustthereforehaveasolidunderstandingofthetextitself,
137
thecontextinwhichitwasproduced,anditshistory,inordertoknowwheretoplace
one’seffortwithinthetimeandmoneyavailable,whattoincludeintheedition,andto
whatlevelofdetail.Thischapteraimstodothisformycasestudy,theCPSF.
As I will describe more fully in Chapter Three, the CPSF is one of the chronicles
producedafterthedeathofAlfonsoX,1duringthereignofFernandoIV.ManuelHijano
pointsoutthattheCPSFappearsinE2(Escorial,X-i-4),amanuscriptwhichoccupies
‘unlugardestacado’amongstthewitnessesinwhichwecanfindtheCPSF.Heexplains
theimportanceofthiswitnessbydescribingitas‘unacopiarealizadaenelentorno
regiocastellano’,andalsobecauseofits‘cercaníaalaredacciónoriginaldelaobraen
épocadeFernandoIV’.2Furthermore,alongsideE1(EscorialY-i-2),E2waseditedto
produce the most significant twentieth-century edition of the Estoria, Ramón
MenéndezPidal’sPrimeraCrónicaGeneral.3Thisshowsthatalthoughitistechnically
post-Alfonsine,formanyscholarsandalsoforthewiderpublic,theCPSFhascometo
be consideredAlfonsine in its reception, and forallbut specialists in theAlfonsine
projectandpost-Alfonsineworks,aspartoftheEstoriadeEspanna.
TheCPSF canbestbeunderstood (and thereforeedited)when it is readasapost-
AlfonsineworkbutwithcloselinkstotheEstoria:itscontextisframedintheAlfonsine
tradition,andtosomeextentitsnarrativeisacontinuationoftheEstoria,butitalso
1ManuelHijanoVillegas,‘CrónicaParticulardeSanFernando:composiciónytransmisión’,Draftcopy(2018),p.3https://www.academia.edu/35861669/Cr%C3%B3nica_particular_de_San_Fernando_draft_,[accessed11/02/2018]2HijanoVillegas,‘CrónicaParticulardeSanFernando:composiciónytransmisión’,p.33RamónMenéndezPidal,PrimeraCrónicaGeneralquemandócomponerAlfonsoelSabioysecontinuababajoSanchoIVen1289,2volumes(Madrid:EditorialGredos,1906,1955,1977)–thisthesisusesthe1955print.
138
has certain aspects particular to the specific post-Alfonsine chronicle tradition in
whichitwasfirstproduced.Inordertobeabletofullyappreciatethepost-Alfonsine
context, it stands to reason that one must first have a clear understanding of the
Alfonsine context.With this inmind Iwill explore theAlfonsineoeuvre, itshistory,
context,content,andsignificance,toprovideabackgroundtothedigitalCPSF.Iwill
lookfirstatthehistoricalcontextoftheAlfonsineproject,andspecificallytheEstoria
deEspanna,includingthelineageofAlfonsoX,hisaccessiontothethrone,hisoeuvre,
andhisquestforempire.IwillthenlookatthesignificanceoftheAlfonsineprojectfor
scholarsofhistory,historiography,andhistoricalsociolinguistics.
2.1HistoricalContextoftheEstoriadeEspanna
PeterLinehanstatesthat‘Alfonso’sideologicalpurposeisneverfarfromthesurface’
intheworksofhistaller.4FollowingLinehan,throughoutthischapterIwillarguethat
oneoftheprimarymotivesfortheAlfonsineoeuvrewaspropagandistic:themonarch’s
extensivepolitico-culturalproductionbothshapedandwasshapedbyhisreignand
thepoliticalcontextwithinwhichtheworkswereproduced.Alfonso5wasnotthefirst,
norwashethelasttousetextshewrote,orofwhichhewasthepatron,inthisway:in
ChapterThreeIwillmakethepointthatLuisFernándezGallardoarguesthatthesame
is true of the CPSF, where the propagandistic motivation is also clear.6 Following
4PeterLinehan,Spain1157-1300:APartibleInheritance(Oxford:Blackwell,2008)p.1635Wherenoregnalnumberisgiven‘Alfonso’referstoAlfonsoXofCastile.OtherkingsnamedAlfonsowillbeidentifiedbyincludingtheirregnalnumber.6LuisFernándezGallardo,‘LaCrónicaparticulardeSanFernando:sobrelosorígenesdelacrónicarealcastellana,I.Aspectosformales’,Cahiersd’étudeshispaniquesmédiévales,32(2009),245-265,259
139
CharlesFraker’sreadingoftheAlfonsinetextsasproductsoftheexternalcontextin
which they were produced,7 and alongside Robinson’s argument against a purely
‘document-centred’ approach to editing: 8 that is to say, with the texts as objects
separablefromthecontextinwhichtheywereproduced,Iwillarguethatinorderto
adequatelyedittheEstoriadeEspanna,andbyextensiontheCPSF,aneditorshould
haveasolidunderstandingofthecontextinwhichtheywereproduced.Thisincludes
thepoliticalandhistoricalcontext,aswellas,intheAlfonsinecaseforreasonswhich
willbecomeapparentbelow,thesociolinguisticcontext,whichofcoursecannottruly
beremovedfromthewiderpoliticalandhistoricalcontext.Forthisreason,forthetime
beingIwillstepslightlyasidefromthetopicofdigitaleditingtolookatthecontextof
production of the texts of the Alfonsine oeuvre. I will first give a brief history of
Alfonso’s lineage and then his reign,mainly using his intellectualwork as a prism
through which we can view the king’s politics and appreciate the political and
historical context inwhich theywere produced. The objective of this chapter is to
provide an understanding of the antecedents and context of the CPSF, as these
exogenousdatawillinformthepreparationandanalysisofmydigitaledition.
2.1.1LineageofAlfonsoX
AlfonsoXofLeon-Castile(r.1252-1284)wasbornin1221inToledo,theeldestsonof
Fernando III (later, ‘el Santo’, and aboutwhom theCPSF iswritten) andBeatrizof
7CharlesFraker.‘AlfonsoX,theEmpireandthePrimeraCrónicaGeneral’inBulletinofHispanicStudies,Vol.55(1978)95-102,968Robinson‘TowardsaTheoryofDigitalEditions’,111
140
Swabia(alsoknownasElizabethofHohenstaufen).ThemarriagebetweenAlfonso’s
parentshadbeencarefullyorchestratedbyhispaternalgrandmotherBerenguela,a
politically significant figure in Castile at the time, 9 as a means of cementing the
relationship between the three great Christian realms, and therefore the political
positionof CastilewithinEurope. Any sons produced through thismarriagewould
haveastrongclaimtothetitleofHolyRomanEmperor.AsIwillshowlater,thepursuit
ofthisimperialthronewasakeypartofmuchofAlfonso’sreign,andwaspivotalinthe
politicsofthelatterpartofhisreignandinthesuccessionofhissonSancho.Alfonso’s
mother’spaternalgrandfatherwasFrederickI,whohadheldtherolesofHolyRoman
EmperorandKingofItaly(both1155-1190),KingofBurgundyandKingofGermany
(both1152-1190),andherfatherwasPhilipofSwabia.Hermaternalgrandfatherwas
the Byzantine emperor Alexis IV,meaning shewas descended ‘from the twomost
prominentChristiandynastiesoftheEastandWest’.10Alfonso’sfatherFernandowas
thesonofAlfonsoIXofLeonandBerenguela,adaughterofAlfonsoVIIIofCastileand
agranddaughterofHenryIIofEnglandandEleanorofAquitaine.11FernandoIIIhad
beenkingofCastilesince1217,andhadinheritedthethroneofLeonuponthedeath
ofhisfatherin1230,therebyunitingthetwokingdoms.FernandoIIIisremembered
for his expansionist policies, as is Alfonso VIII, 12 and by the time of the death of
Fernandoin1252,CastilewasthemostpowerfulkingdominthePeninsulaandoneof
the most powerful in Christian Europe. Even the Moorish stronghold kingdom of
9JosephO’Callaghan,AHistoryofMedievalSpain(IthacaandLondon:CornellUniversityPress,1975)p.33710H.SalvadorMartínez,AlfonsoX,theLearned:ABiography,translatedbyOdileCisneros(LeidenandBoston:Brill,2010)p.3611SalvadorMartínez,AlfonsoX,theLearned,p.3712ForfurtherinformationontheReconquistacampaigns,seeJulioValdeónBaruque,LaReconquista:ElconceptodeEspaña:unidadydiversidad(Madrid:Espasa,2006)
141
Granada,althoughstillakingdominitsownright,separatefromCastile,wasmostly
withinthepowerofthekingofCastileby1252,andtheKingofGranadawasavassal
oftheKingofCastile.13
2.1.2Alfonso’saccessiontothethroneandhis‘talleres’
Alfonsoacceded to the throne in1252,becomingAlfonsoX.Muchofhis reignwas
shapedbyhisquestforpower,whichwasmanifestedfromtheoutset:emphasizinghis
powerasmonarch,Alfonso’sroyalintitulationlistshistitlesaskingofCastile,Toledo,
Leon,Galicia,Seville,Cordoba,Murcia,JaenandtheAlgarve.14Alfonsowasthepatron
ofagroupofscholars,carryingoutsomeoftheworkhimself,toproduce‘abodyof
literature and scholarship unparalleled elsewhere in thirteenth-century Europe’. 15
This isAlfonso’ssignificantpolitico-culturaloeuvreofwhichtheEstoriadeEspanna
formsapart.FranciscoMárquez-Villanuevahasdescribedtheking’sculturalproject
an‘ambitiousenterprise’,andan‘unqualifiedsuccess’,statingthatitsimpactonthe
Castilian languagewas such that it continues to remain evident today.16The king’s
oeuvrecomprisesseveralthematicareas,includinghistory,law,religiousdevotion(to
theVirginMary in theCantigasdeSantaMaría)andscience,where ‘science’covers
sometopicswhichwouldgenerallynolongerbeconsideredscientific:inadditionto
13JohnEstenKeller,AlfonsoX,ElSabio(NewYork:Twayne,1967)p.2214JosephO’Callaghan,TheLearnedKing:TheReignofAlfonsoXofCastile(Philadelphia:UniversityofPennsylvaniaPress,1993)p.1115O’Callaghan,TheLearnedKing,p.13116FranciscoMárquez-Villanueva,‘TheAlfonsineculturalconcept’,FranciscoMárquez-VillanuevaandCarlosAlbertoVega(Eds.)AlfonsoXofCastiletheLearned(1221-1284):AnInternationalSymposium,HarvardUniversity,17November1984(CambridgeMA:TheDepartmentofRomanceLanguagesandLiteraturesofHarvardUniversity,1990)pp.76-92,p.76
142
his work on astronomy, including the movements of the planets (in the Alfonsine
Tables, which were based on translations from texts in Arabic17and of which the
significanceonWesternsciencewassuchthattheyremainedinuseuntilthesixteenth
century), 18 Alfonsine science included astrology, and magic. 19 Marcella de Marco
explainsthisasaculturaloverlapbetweenadesiretounderstandtheexactsciences
(astronomy,geology)anda fearofnegating traditionalbeliefs (magic, astrology),20
althoughAlfonsoandhiscontemporariesmaynothavedrawnsuchadistinction.As
pointedout inAntonioSolalinde’s1915 ‘seminal article’21on the topicofAlfonso’s
intellectualoutput,aquotefromAlfonso’sGeneralEstoriarevealstheking’sviewof
himself:thechroniclecontainsaratherloftyanalogyofAlfonso’sinterventioninthe
workofhistallertoGod’sinterventioninMoseswritingthefirstbooksoftheBible,22
emphasizingthepointconnotedinhisroyalintitulation–thatAlfonsoviewedhimself
asextremelypowerful,andhisoeuvrewasademonstrationofthis.Linehanwritesof
theking’s‘intellectualomnivorousness’andhis‘insatiableappetite’forlearning,23and
KellerhaswrittenthatAlfonsowasscholarlyandacademicfromayoungage.24The
outputofhistallerrevolutionisedthebodyofknowledgeavailabletoChristianEurope,
17JoséChabás,‘TheDiffusionoftheAlfonsineTables:ThecaseoftheTabulaeResolutae’,PerspectivesonScience10:2(2002),168-178,16918FranciscoMárquez-Villanueva,‘TheAlfonsineculturalconcept’,p.8719MonserratPonsTovar,‘TraducciónenlacortedeAlfonsoX’,AnMalElectrónica29(2010),241-251,24320MarcellaDeMarco,‘TecnicismosycultismosenelLapidariodeAlfonsoXelSabio’Hesperia7:2004,37-56,3821AnthonyCárdenas,Alfonso’sScriptoriumandChancery:RoleofthePrologueinBondingtheTranslatioStudiitotheTranslatioPotestatishttp://libro.uca.edu/alfonso10/emperor7.htm[accessed10/07/2014]22SolalindequotesfromAlfonsoX,GeneralEstoria1aparte,ManuscriptBibliotecaNacional816f.215a;AntonioSolalinde,‘IntervencióndeAlfonsoelSabioenlaredaccióndesusobras’,inRevistadeFilologíaEspañola,Vol.2(1915)283-288,285-28623Linehan,p.13124Keller,p.38
143
andinparticularthatwhichwasavailabletoreadersofCastilian.Alfonso’schoiceof
languageforhisoeuvreisparticularlysignificant,andwillbeexploredmorefullyina
laterpartofthischapter.
Solalinde’swork shows that the texts of theAlfonsine tallerwere the productof a
processofcollaboration,inwhichthemonarchplayedanimportantanddirectpart.
Heexplainsthat,forthemostpart,thekingwasinvolvedatthe‘genesis’ofeachwork,
directinghowitshouldbedone,andthenagaininthecorrectionstage.25Theactual
redactionofthetextwasdonebyAlfonso’scollaborators,thatis,thescholarsofhis
taller,26butthereisstrongevidencethatAlfonso’sroleintheprocesswasactive.The
arthistorianAnaDomínguezRodríguezhasstudiedtheminiaturesof theAlfonsine
codices,andhaswrittenofhowtheserevealAlfonso’sroleinthepreparationofthe
textsand inhisperceptionofhisrole:Alfonso isusually founddictatingtoscribes,
oftenwithapointedfingerdemonstratinghisactiveroleandpositionofauthority.27
DomínguezRodríguezexplainsthathavinganimageofthemonarchinacodexisnot
unusual,andimpliesthecodexisbeingofferedbythescribe,translatororauthorto
thesovereignaspatron,but it isuncommonfor thismonarchtobeshownactively
participating in the creation of the codex in the way that Alfonso is sometimes
presented.28Wecanturnourattentionherebacktotheafore-citedquotationfromthe
GeneralEstoria I,explainingtheking’sroleintheworksofthetaller.Followingthis
logic,aswellasthemedievalnotionofauthorshipdiscussedinChapterOne,Iwillrefer
25Solalinde,28726Solalinde,287-28827AnaDomínguezRodríguez,‘Laminiaturadel‘scriptorium’alfonsí’,Estudiosalfonsíes:Lexicografía,lírica,ypolíticadeAlfonsoelSabio(Granada:UniversidaddeGranada,1985)pp.127-61,pp.144-14728DomínguezRodríguez,p.144
144
tothetextsproducedinthetallerasAlfonsine,forthemostpartasifhewerethesole
author.
JosephO’CallaghanhasarguedthatoneofthereasonsbehindAlfonso’stallerwasto
unify his fragmented kingdom.29 He goes on to argue that the reasoning behind
Alfonso’sextensivebodyofscientificandculturalworkwasnoble,stating:
He set out to organize the entire body of human knowledge and tomake itaccessible to the widest possible audience. Acknowledging the unity of allknowledgeandseeingitasamanifestationofGod’spresence,hebelievedthathewasrenderinghomagetoGodandbringingGodandhumanityintoclosercommunication.30
Linehan, however, argues convincingly that he sees less intellectual altruism in
Alfonso’swork,readingitasmorethemanifestationofacontinuingquestforpower–
hecallsthekinga‘controlfreak’31–aharshterm,butthereasoningbehinditsusage
isjustified,particularlyinthecaseofAlfonso’slegislativeworkswhich,aswewillsee
later,areanexampleoftheking’sintentiontoemphasizeandstrengthenhispolitical
controloverthekingdom.ItistheselegaltextsthatIwilllookatfirstandwillexamine
thepoliticalandsocialcontextinwhichtheywereproduced.
29O’Callaghan,TheLearnedKing,p.1130O’Callaghan,TheLearnedKing,p.13131Linehan,p.118
145
2.1.3Alfonsineauthority,legislationandthelegaltexts
InthecenturypriortoAlfonso’saccessiontothethrone,acrossEuropetheconceptof
royal authority and powerwithin amonarch’s own kingdomhad been changing.32
Before the middle of the twelfth century, the power of European monarchs had
primarilybeenlimitedtothatoffeudalsovereigns,sustainedonlythroughthesupport
of the nobility. 33 Salvador Martínez explains that from the middle of the twelfth
century,themonarchbecame‘amorecentralizingandpowerfulinstitution’duetothe
adoptionofRomanLaw,whichremovedmanyoftheprivilegestraditionallyenjoyed
bythenobility.34Duringthetenthandeleventhcenturies,monarchsinIberiahadbeen
seenasafirstamongstequals,35andwereexpectedtoseekcounselandadvicefrom
the nobles and the court, according to the constitutional role of the ruler.36 This
changedduring the following twocenturies,whereby the ‘roleof theCrown in the
administrationofjusticeledtoanincreaseinroyalcontrol’,37meaningthatinCastile
themonarchwasnolongerrequiredtoconsultthenobilityortheChurchinmatters
relatingtothegovernanceoftherealm.AsHelenClagettexplains,however,thenobles
inthirteenth-centuryCastile-Leon,werestillaccustomedtobeinginaroleofprivilege
andinfluence,giventhesubdivisionofthePeninsulaintoseveralkingdomsandcities,
eachofwhichwaslargelyself-governing.Thenobilityofeachregionwerethereforein
32ChrisWickham,MedievalEurope(NewHaven:YaleUniversityPress,2016)pp.141-14833SalvadorMartínez,AlfonsoX,theLearned,pp.295-29634SalvadorMartínez,AlfonsoX,theLearned,pp.295-296;AngusMackay,SpaintheMiddleAges:FromFrontiertoEmpire,1000-1500(Basingstoke:Macmillan,1977)p.9935JoséMiguelCarriónGutiérrez,ConociendoaAlfonsoXelSabio(Murcia:EditorialRegionaldeMurcia,1997)p.3436Mackay,SpaintheMiddleAges,p.10037Mackay,SpaintheMiddleAges,pp.98-99
146
apositionofhighauthorityandpower.38Furthermore,duetotheexpansionistpolicies
ofAlfonso’sfatherFernandoIIIandgreat-grandfatherAlfonsoVIII,themajorityofthe
nobleshadbeenkeptoccupied,ratherthanrestless,andlargelysatisfiedthroughout
their respective reigns,39given the rewards,meaning land, rights andwealth, that
camealongsideexpansion.40
TheaccessionofAlfonsoXwastochangethis,andmanyoftheprivilegestowhichthe
nobleswereaccustomed,suchastheirpositionsoflegalauthority,trialsbypeers,and
their long-held customs were endangered by the king’s ‘new-fangled laws’,41such
changeswere‘toutàfaitindésirables’forthenobles.42AsSalvadorMartínezexplains,
‘this must have seemed to the Castilian nobility and the Church hierarchy as an
authentic revolution that disrupted the balance these two institutions traditionally
maintainedwiththemonarchy’.43AlfonsoXdidcontinuetoseekcounselfromboththe
nobilityandtheChurchintheadministrationofCastile-Leon,includingfiscalmatters,
economicpolicy,howtofinancehisquestforempire,thematterofthewarwiththe
NorthAfricanMoors,andtheissueofwhowouldsucceedhim,followingthedeathof
hiseldestson,44althoughonemaywonderifhisrequestsforcounselweregenuineor
anattempttomanagethenobles’behaviourbypayingthemlipservice.
38HelenL.Clagett,‘LasSietePartidas’inTheQuarterlyJournaloftheLibraryofCongressVol.22No.4(October1965)341-346,34239KennethVanderford,AlfonsoelSabio:Setenario(BuenosAires:InstitutodeFilología,1945)p.xiv40Wickham,p.14541O’Callaghan,TheLearnedKing,p.8042GeorgesMartin,LesjugesdeCastille–Mentatlitésetdiscourshistoriquedansl’Espagnemédiévale(Paris:Séminaired’étudesmédiévaleshispaniques,1992)p.32143SalvadorMartínez,AlfonsoX,theLearned,p.29744SalvadorMartínez,AlfonsoX,theLearned,p.297
147
Alfonsodidnot,however,involvethenobilityinlegislativematters:thishereserved
solelyforhimself,asinhisview,crucially,asmonarchhewastheonlypersonqualified
to make laws in the kingdom of Castile-Leon. 45 And make laws he did. The Siete
Partidas,whichformspartoftheking’spolitico-culturaloeuvre,wasthe‘mostnotable
[legal]codeofthatage’,46andcomprisedsome2,844laws.However,itisworthnoting
that this legal code was not actually promulgated until 1348 by Alfonso’s great-
grandsonAlfonsoXI,showingthatAlfonsowasnotentirelysuccessfulinhisattempt
to increasehispower through legislativemeans.47In thePartidas,Alfonsoexplains
thathehadwitnessedoccasionsofalackoflegaljustice,theimplementationoflaws
whichwere ‘against God and against justice’, and judgementsmade ‘at hazard and
accordingtopersonalwhim’.48Withtheintentionofstandardisinglegalpractices,and,
according to SimonBarton,49reinforcing his authority as king over his subjects, in
additiontothePartidas,Alfonsooversawthepreparationoftwolesserlegalcodes:the
Fuero Real and the Espéculo de las leyes. 50This meant that many nobles who had
previously served as justices were replaced by legists, who ‘became increasingly
influentialintheworkofgovernment’.51Inadditiontothis,hecompletedtheSetenario,
whichhadbeenstartedbyhisfatherFernandoIII,52andratherthanstrictlyalegaltext,
isstillanattempttocontrolthebehaviourofothers,inthatitisapoliticaltextthatcan
beconsidered‘adidacticworkoftheologicalandmoralcounselintendedfortheuseof
45O’Callaghan,TheLearnedKing,p.2846Clagett,34147Clagett,34248Keller,p.11149SimonBarton,AHistoryofSpain(Basingstoke:PalgraveMacmillan,2004)p.7950Keller,pp.113-11551Mackay,p.9952Vanderford,p.xvi
148
[…]membersoftheroyalhouse’.53Therelevanceofallofthistotheoverallthesisisto
showtheplantingof theseedof theuseofroyal texts inanattempt forthekingto
managethebehaviourofhissubjects,particularlythenobility.InChapterThreeIwill
discussthepro-monarchicslantandpropagandisticobjectivebehindtheCPSF,which,
althoughnotstrictlyaroyaltext,wasalsousedtoattempttomanagethebehaviourof
the nobility.54The present section also introduces the idea that by the time of the
productionoftheAlfonsinelegaltexts,therelationshipbetweenthemonarchandthe
nobilitywas vastly different to the previous status quo, aswewill continue to see
below.
Alfonso’sviewofroyalauthoritywas ‘absolutist’:55hebelievedthatmonarchswere
the holders of God’s place on Earth, and should therefore be honoured. 56 He
communicatedthis through lengthypassages inhis lawcodes,57theproductionand
contentsofwhichmeant thepaceof theevolutionof theconceptofroyalpower in
Castile-Leon was quickened, and became more visible. In his legal texts, Alfonso
reinforcesthereductionofthepowerandauthorityofthenobilitybyemphasizingthat
onlykingsandemperorscouldmake laws.58Kellerexplainsthesituationbystating
thatthekinghopedthenewlawcodes‘wouldbeacceptedthroughouttherealmasa
kindoflegalencyclopediawhichjudgesandlawyerscouldconsultasaguideprepared
bynotedexpertsinjurisprudence,includingthekinghimself’,59andSalvadorMartínez
53O’Callaghan,TheLearnedKing,p.13654LuisFernándezGallardo,‘LaCrónicaparticulardeSanFernando:sobrelosorígenesdelacrónicarealcastellana,I.Aspectosformales’,Cahiersd’étudeshispaniquesmédiévales,32(2009),245-265,25255SalvadorMartínez,AlfonsoX,theLearned,p.29756O’Callaghan,TheLearnedKing,p.2657O’Callaghan,TheLearnedKing,p.2658O’Callaghan,TheLearnedKing,p.2859Keller,p.118
149
explainsthatAlfonsohopedthatgoverningallcitieswiththesamelawswouldallow
himto‘achieveuniformityintheadministrativepolicyofalltowns’.60Theviewofthe
nobles, however, was somewhat different, given their vested interests in the
established legal practices prior to the introduction of Alfonso’s legal codes.61The
centralizationoflegalcodesandtheremovalofthenobility’spowertolegislatewasin
directconflictwiththepreviousstateofaffairs,wherethenobleshadheldagreatdeal
morepowerintheirownregions,andhadlegislatedandjudged,oftenaccordingto
their wont and personal financial interests. Barton states that many of them
consideredthesecodes‘afundamentalattackontheirtraditionallibertiesandtheir
privileged position at the heart of government’ and placed Alfonso on a ‘collision
course’with thenobles.62In thisway,Alfonso’s legislative texts canbeviewedasa
meansof reinforcingandextending theking’spowerover thekingdom,63including
intothefuture,sincelawsbytheirnaturearedesignedtomaintaincontroloverthe
futurebehaviourthosewhoareforcedtoabidebythem.Inthesamevein,theking’s
historicaltextscanbereadasameansofemphasizingthepowerofhispast,andin
particular his lineage, and therefore his claim to the throne and his aspiration to
becomeEmperoroftheHolyRomanEmpire.AswewillseeinmoredetailinChapter
Three,theCPSFwasalsoanattempttoemphasizethepowerofthemonarchandto
maintaincontroloverthenobility.ThatistosaythatFernandoIIIisusedalmostasa
metaphor for Fernando IV, during whose reign the CPSF is written, or at least
completed, in an attempt to manage the rebellious behaviour of the nobles by
60SalvadorMartínez,AlfonsoX,theLearned,p.30161Keller,p.11962Barton,pp.79-8063Barton,p.79
150
highlightingtheimportanceoftheMolinafamilyduringthereignsofbothkings,64the
role of the kings’ respective mothers, 65 and the importance of the union of the
unificationofCastileandLeon(andthebeliefthatitshouldremainunified).66
2.1.4Thehistoricaltexts
Alfonsodidnotonlyusehislegaltextstomaintainandemphasizehispower:healso
attempted to do this through his histories. He commissioned two chronicles: the
GeneralEstoriaandthatwhichisnowgenerallyreferredtoastheEstoriadeEspanna,
written,likeallofhisproseworks,inCastilian.GeorgesMartinremindsusthatAlfonso
wasnotonlythepatronoftheseworks,butwasanactiveparticipantintheirwriting
– ‘laproductionhistoriographique futdirectementpriseenchargepar leroi’.67The
EstoriadeEspannawasdesignedasageneralhistoryofSpain,frompre-history,viathe
Romans,rightuptothetimeofAlfonso’saccessiontothethroneofCastile,andwas
unfinishedbythetimeofAlfonso’sdeathin1284,withonlyprovisionaltextsforthe
final section. 68 The reign of Fernando III was therefore originally planned to be
includedfullyintheEstoria,butthiswasnotachievedduringthelifetimeofAlfonsoX.
As Leonardo Funes notes, textual references in the CPSF show us that it is post-
Alfonsine,69althoughawitnessofitappearsinE2,partsofwhichareAlfonsine.This
64Barton,pp.73-7465FernándezGallardo,24766FernándezGallardo,25967Martin,LesjugesdeCastille,p.60268ManuelHijanoVillegas,‘Monumentoinacabado:LaEstoriadeEspaña’,Cahiersd’étudeshispaniquesmédiévales37(2014),13-44,1469LeonardoFunes,La‘Estoriacabadelante’enlaCrónicaParticulardeSanFernando:UnavisiónnobiliariadelreinadodeFernandoIII’,ConstanceCarta,SarahFinciandDoraMancheva(Eds.)Antesde
151
has important implications for an edition of the CPSF, which will be discussed in
ChapterThree.
Planned to be wider in scope than the Estoria de Espanna, the General Estoria,
described by Funes as an ‘una ambiciosa historia universal desde la Creación del
mundohastalaépocadeAlfonsoX’,70wasalsounfinishedbyAlfonso’sdemise:extant
manuscripts, which exist in varying degrees of completeness, suggest it was only
completed up to the birth of Christ. 71 Building on the work of Inés Fernández-
Ordóñez,72MarianaLeitehasdescribedtherelationshipbetweenthetwochronicles
astheGeneralEstoriabeinga‘spin-off’oftheEstoriadeEspanna,explainingherchoice
oftermreferringtothewaythattheGeneralEstoriausedmanyofthematerialsofthe
Estoria de Espanna, but with a new perspective: a history of empires rather than
historywitha local focus.73However,unlikemostTVspin-offs, Fernández-Ordóñez
contendsthatthetwohistoriesweremostlikelywrittenatthesametime.Sheargues
thattheywerewrittenbytwoteamsofscholars,independentofeachother,butwith
somesharingofsourcematerial,andthepatronofbothprojectswas,ofcourse,the
same.74
agotanlamanoylaplumaquesuhistoria–Magisdeficitmanusetcalamusquameiushystoria,HomenajeaCarlosAlvar,VolumenI:EdadMedia(SanMillándelaCogolla:Cilengua,2016)pp.643-655,p.65170LeonardoFunes,Elmodelohistoriográficoalfonsí(London:DepartmentofHispanicStudies,QueenMaryandWestfieldCollege,1997)p.871O’Callaghan,TheLearnedKing,pp.139-14072Fernández-Ordóñez,‘Eltallerhistoriográficoalfonsí’.pp.105-12673MarianaLeite,‘Transmittingandtranslatingthehistoryoftheworld:Alfonso’sGeneralEstoriainPortugal’,TheEstoriadeEspannaProjectResearchSeminar,(UniversityofBirmingham,14April2016)74InésFernández-Ordóñez,LasEstoriasdeAlfonsoelSabio,(Madrid:Istmo,1992)p.95www.cervantesvirtual.com/descargaPdf/las-estorias-de-alfonso-el-sabio-0/[accessed12/06/2018]
152
Alfonso’shistoriographicalmethodwastocompilehistextsusingasmanysourcesas
possible, and to compile them coherently into one text.75The sources used for his
historiesweremanyandvaried,andincludedRoman,GothicandMedievalhistories,
theBible,textsinArabic,andpoetry,aswellastwomajorhistorieswritteninLatin
andcommissionedbyhisrecentpredecessorsasmonarchofCastile:RodrigoJiménez
deRada’sDerebusHispaniae,andLucasdeTuy’sChroniconmundi.76O’Callaghanstates
that Alfonso used farmore sources than had been used in the preparation of any
previoushistory,77althoughwecannotknowthisforsure.
SeveralrecensionsoftheEstoriadeEspannawereprepared,manyofwhichareextant,
someofwhichareAlfonsine–thatis,preparedduringhisreignandbyhisscriptorium
–andothersarelater.Fernández-OrdóñezliststhefollowingversionsoftheEstoria:
theVersión primitiva (1270-1274), theVersión enmendada de después de 1274, the
Versióncrítica(1282-1284)andtheVersiónretóricamenteamplificada(1289,during
thereignofSanchoIV).78Inanotherwork,shedescribestheversionsandmanuscripts
indetail,andshowsthatdifferencesbetweentheAlfonsinerecensionsoftheEstoria
andthetreatmentoftheirsourcesdemonstratethatthelaterversionsarenotsimply
witnessesoftheolderversions.Instead,theyareeditedinsuchawayastoreflectthe
changingpoliticsofAlfonso’sreign.79Forexample,aparagraphintheVersióncrítica
75O’Callaghan,TheLearnedKing,p.13876Keller,p158;O’Callaghan,TheLearnedKing,p.13877O’Callaghan,TheLearnedKing,p.13878InésFernández-Ordóñez,‘VariaciónenelmodeloalfonsíenelsigloXIII’,CasadeVelázquez(ed.)Lahistoriaalfonsí:elmodeloysusdestinos(siglosXIII-XV)(Madrid:CasadeVelázquez,2000)p.4279InésFernández-Ordóñez,‘Latransmisióntextualdela‘EstoriadeEspaña’ydelasprincipales‘Crónicas’deellasderivadas’inInésFernández-Ordóñez(Ed.)AlfonsoXelSabioylascrónicasdeEspaña(Valladolid:UniversidaddeValladolid,2000)pp.219-264
153
thatisnotpresentinearlierrecensions,condemnstherebellionofSanchoagainsthis
father,80aboutwhichIwillspeakmorefullylater.
Thispoint is particularlyuseful tomodern editors of theEstoria, and in particular
digitaleditors: the lattermayusetechnologytoallowthemtoelectronicallycollate
witnessesandalloweditionusers tomoreeasilycompareversionsof thetext from
differentmanuscriptsthanwouldbepossiblewithoutthesedigitaltools.Theincreased
convenienceofsucha toolmeansuserswouldbemore likely todosowhensucha
possibilityismorefreelyavailable,asitisinadigitalformat,thantheymayhavedone
using more traditional methods. It also shows why a purely document-centred
approachasadvocated(separately)byPierazzoandGabler,orapurelyLachmannian
approach,wouldbeinappropriateforaneditionoftheEstoria,asdifferencesbetween
thetextcontainedwithinthewitnessesarelikelytobeofhighscholarlyinterest,and
would be lost if the editor rid the edition of non-authorial emendations, or if the
external context of productionof theworkwas not taken into considerationwhen
editing.ABédieristapproachwouldalsohavetobeusedwithcautionforworkssuch
astheEstoria,whichhassuchcomplexcontextsofproductionandrewriting,inorder
nottolosevaluableinformationthatislikelytobeofgreatinteresttothosewhouse
theedition,ascouldhappenifonlyonewitnesswasusedtopreparetheedition.This
reiteratestheimportanceforaneditortohaveasolidunderstandingofthesignificance
ofthetextbeingeditedforthepotentialusersoftheedition,iftheeditionistobeofas
muchuseaspossible.
80Fernández-Ordóñez,‘Latransmisióntextual’,p.231
154
Oneof themainpurposesof theAlfonsinehistorieswastobedidactic, in that they
‘providedexamplesofconductforhumanitytoimitateortoavoid’,81asFrakerargues,
thetextsmustbereadasproductsoftheexternalcontextinwhichtheywerewritten:
thatis,thehighlightingofreferencestotheRomanemperors,andthefocusonAlfonso
asadescendentoftheimperiallineagecanbereadas‘attheveryleastanallusionto
theLearnedKing’simperialaspirations’,oreven‘asanapologyforthoseaspirations’.82
GeraldineHazbunhasalsowrittenoftheclearlinkbetweentheEstoriaandtheking’s
imperialaspirations,emphasisingkeythemesinthechronicleaspoliticalgainsand
losses,justice,treasonandloyalty.83EvenabasicunderstandingofAlfonsinehistory
allowsonetoseeechoesofthesethemesintheking’sreign,andthedidacticismofthe
text is clear. We can return here to Linehan’s comment that ‘Alfonso’s ideological
purposeisneverfarfromthesurface’intheworksofhistaller;thisiscertainlytrueof
hishistories.84LinehangoesontostatethatthetoneoftheGeneralEstoriais‘severely
andrelentlesslydidactic’andthatthemessageofthehistoryisdirectedtowards‘‘high
princes’and‘othergoodmen’asshouldhaveearstohearit’.85Martintacklestheissue
of the language inwhich theproseworksof theAlfonsineoeuvre,whichof course
includesthehistories,werewritten,statingthat‘l’usaged’unelanguevernaculaireest
bienentendudéterminant.Ilestdestiné[…]àfaciliterladiffusiondumessageroyal
auprès des élites peu lettrées’. 86 Sociolinguistic matters, including the choice of
81O’Callaghan,TheLearnedKing,p.13882Fraker,9683GeraldineCoates(Hazbun),‘’Etsidestomenguas’:decadenciaimperialenlaEstoriadeEspaña’,FranciscoBautista(ed.)ElRelatohistoriográfico:textosytradicionesenlaEspañaMedieval,PapersoftheMedievalHispanicResearchSeminar48(London:DepartmentofHispanicStudies,QueenMary,UniversityofLondon,2006)pp.103-12184Linehan,p.16385Linehan,p.16386GeorgesMartin,Histoiresdel’Espagnemédiévales(Historiographie,geste,romancero)(Paris:Séminaired’étudesmédiévaleshispaniquesdel’universitédeParisXIII,1997)pp.133-134
155
languageforhisproseworksandtheimplicationsthishasonintendedaudienceand
the propagationof his politicalmessagewill be treated inmore depth later in this
chapter,althoughIwilladdherethatwecantakeHazbun’s,Linehan’s,Martin’sand
Fernández-Ordóñez’s arguments together tosee that through thedidactic toneand
choice of language in his historical texts, Alfonso can be seen to be attempting to
disseminatehisviewoncontemporarypoliticaleventsamongstaswideanaudience
aspossible,usinghisideologyasalensthroughwhichtoviewhistoryandtoreflecton
hissources.AsMartinpointsout,thiswasnotanewusageofhistories,ashistorywas
atthetimeinquestion, ‘unaformadominantedeldiscursopolítico’.87Ifthepointof
histories at the time they were written was for them to be didactic and as
commentariesandanalysisofbehaviour, thishighlightswhy, at least in the caseof
medieval histories, we cannot understand a history without its context. If we are
readingmedievalhistorical textsasaproductof theircontext,wethereforecannot
hopetoeditamedievalhistorywithouttakingintoaccountthecircumstancesinwhich
itwasproducedandtransmitted.ThisreiterateswhyGablerandPierazzoandtheir
‘document-centred’ approach to editing, to use Robinson’s term88is not the most
appropriate for editing Alfonsine prose. Martin’s point shows that in the case of
medievalhistories,muchwouldbelostiftheireditorssharedGablerandPierazzo’s
viewpoint.
87GeorgesMartin,‘Elmodelohistoriográficoalfonsíysusantecedentes’,CasadeVelázquez(ed.)Lahistoriaalfonsí:elmodeloysusdestinos(siglosXIII-XV)(Madrid:CasadeVelázquez,2000)p.3288Robinson‘TowardsaTheoryofDigitalEditions’,111
156
2.1.5ThewiderAlfonsineoeuvre
Alfonso’spolitico-culturaloeuvrecomprisedmorethanjustlegislativeandhistorical
texts,andtheworkscontainedwithintheking’sprojectcangiveusawiderinsightinto
Alfonsinesocietyandalsothecircumstancesinwhichthemonarchfoundhimselfthan
justthecontentoftheworksthemselves.DiegoCatalánbuildsonGonzaloMenéndez
Pidal’swork,89anddescribeshowthereweretwomainperiodsofproductionofthe
Alfonsinetaller:thefirstwas1250to1260,whichprimarilyinvolvedtranslatingtexts
fromotherlanguages:usuallyArabicintoCastilian.IntheviewofG.MenéndezPidal
andlaterofCatalán,thesecondmainperiodofproductionwas1269to1284,during
whichtimethetranslationofsecondarysourceswassurpassedbythe‘compilationof
originalworks’,90andAlfonsoworkedonmorepersonaltextssuchastheCantigasde
Santa María, 91 redrafted of some of his legal texts, 92 and revised some of his
translationsfromthefirstperiod.93Fernández-Ordóñez,however,arguesagainstthe
separationof theAlfonsineoeuvre intotwoperiods in thisway, explaining that the
divisiononlyholdstrue if the juridical textsarenot taken intoaccount,andthat to
separatethelegaltextsfromtherestoftheoutputofhistallerwouldbeinappropriate
astheyrepresentafundamentalpartoftheoeuvre.Shegoesontostatethatsincethe
dates previously given to theCantigas de SantaMaría have been revised since the
publicationofG.MenéndezPidal’s‘classic’paper,scholarsnowbelievethatthesemay
89GonzaloMenéndezPidal,‘Cómotrabajaronlasescuelasalfonsíes’,NuevaRevistadeFilologíaHispánica5:4(1951)363-38090DiegoCatalán,DeAlfonsoXalCondedeBarcelos:CuatroestudiossobreelnacimientodelahistoriografíaromanceenCastillayPortugal(Madrid:EditorialGredos,1962)p.19[Mytranslation.Original:‘secompilanobrasoriginales’.]91G.MenéndezPidal,p.36992SalvadorMartínez,AlfonsoX,theLearned,pp.249-25093Catalán,DeAlfonsoXalCondedeBarcelos,p.19
157
havebeencompiledduringthetimebetweenthetraditionally-heldtwomainperiods
ofactivityoftheAlfonsinetaller.94
ThemethodologyoftheAlfonsinetranslationscanalsogiveusaninsightintowider
Alfonsinesociety.Throughthetranslationswegethintsofthepossiblelevelofmulti-
faithcoexistenceofthetime(particularlywhentheseareanalysedinthecontextofthe
contentsoftheAlfonsinelaws),95andwecanalsolookspecificallyatthesociolinguistic
contextofAlfonso’sreign,includinghisaspirationsforthelanguageofCastileandits
significance bothwithin and outside his kingdom. The translationswere primarily
conductedat theschoolsof translationatToledo,wheretranslatorswouldwork in
pairsonatext:onepartnerwouldbeanexpertinthesourcelanguageandtheotherin
the target language.96G. Menéndez Pidal states that Alfonso’sway of working ‘no
ofreciónovedadninguna’inthathecontinued,atfirst,tomakeuseofthistechniqueof
pairedtranslation,butthenoveltyhedidofferwasnotjusttohaveCastilianasanoral
steppingstoneinthetranslationprocessbetweenArabicandLatin,butforittobean
endinitself:thatistosaytotranslateintoCastilianasthefinishedproduct,ratherthan
thenmakingthesecondstepoftranslatingthisCastilianintoLatin.97Insomeinstances
theAlfonsineschooloftranslationproducedtextstranslatedintobothCastilianand
Latin,butthiswasnotalwaysthecase.98Lateron,Alfonsomovedtothetechniqueof
94Fernández-Ordóñez,‘Eltallerhistoriográficoalfonsí’.95ChristianKusi-ObodumgivesaclearandconciseoverviewofscholarlydebatesurroundingtheissueofconvivenciafromtheunderstandingofthetermbyAméricoCastroin1948toscholarsofthepresentday.SeeChristianKusi-Obodum,AlfonsoXandIslam:NarrativesofConflictandCo-operationintheEstoriadeEspaña,Unpublisheddoctoralthesis,(UniversityofBirmingham,2017)http://etheses.bham.ac.uk/8095/[accessed01/07/2018]pp.18-2896GonzaloMenéndezPidal,36597G.MenéndezPidal,pp.365-36698O’Callaghan,TheLearnedKing,p.141
158
translatorsworking alone, but he subsequentlymoved back to pairedwork.99The
translators Alfonso employed were primarily learned Jews, many of whom were
bilingualinArabicandCastilian,andhadmasteredLatin,andsomeofwhomcouldalso
readHebrewandGreek.100WhilstAlfonso’smethodoftranslationmayhaveoffered
nonovelty,Márquez-Villanuevaarguesthathisconceptofknowledgedid:forthefirst
time, he states, knowledge was seen as being independent from religion, and the
monarchplacedChristianandnon-Christianthoughtonanequalfooting.101
María Rosa Menocal paints a positive image of the level of tolerance present in
Medieval Spain – an imprecise term, but sufficient for her book’s intendedgeneral
readership,forwhomheraimistopromoteapositiveviewofMedievalSpainandthe
three faith groups living there together. She states, for example, that ‘Muslims,
Christians,andJewsdidnothaveseparateculturesbasedonreligiousdifferencesbut
ratherwerepartofabroadandexpansiveculturethathadincorporatedelementsof
all their traditions.’102 She claims that there existed a certain level of rejection of
tolerance within each of the three faith communities, such as Jews opposing
intermarriage, or Muslims who rejected the tolerance of other more progressive
99G.MenéndezPidal,p.367100Keller,p.135101Márquez-Villanueva,p.130;Thisstatementdoesnot,however,takeintoaccounttheworkthatbythispoint,hadbeenbeingundertakenforsometimeattheUniversityofParis,wheretheworkofAristotlewasbeingre-translatedintoLatinandstudied,havingarrivedviaBaghdadandCordoba.ThisAristotelianthoughtchallengedtheChurch’sofficialteachings.ThepapacyreactedbyissuingrepeatedprohibitionsagainstthestudyanddisseminationofworksbyAristotleandthe‘provocative’readingsofAristotlebyAverroes,buttheseprovedineffective,andby1230severalprominentfiguresinPariswereopenlyteachingtheseworksandchallengingwhatconstitutedChristianfaithandunderstanding.SeeMaríaRosaMenocal,TheOrnamentoftheWorld:howMuslims,JewsandChristianscreatedacultureoftoleranceinmedievalSpain(London:Little,BrownandCompany,2002),pp.201-203102Menocal,p.318
159
Muslims, 103 but says little of the ‘official’ religious intolerance coming from the
Alfonsine court, such as from his legal texts, focussing instead on Alfonso’s
‘transformation’ of Castilian from ‘just one of the peninsula’s many competing
Romancevernacularsintoalegitimatelanguageofauthorityandhistory’throughthe
translations of his taller. 104Contrastingly, Simon Doubleday is rather less positive
about the level of religious tolerance in Alfonsine society: he explains that it is
important not to assume that since Alfonso deeply respected the knowledge and
translationskillsofnon-Christianscholars,thatthethreereligionslivedandworked
togetherinastateofmulticulturalharmony.Hearguesthatthesituationwasinstead
moreoneof‘pragmaticcoexistence…withinadeeplycolonialcontext’:105althoughwe
donotyetwitnessthe ‘fanatical intolerance’106thatsawJewsandMuslimsexpelled
fromSpain in1492, inAlfonsine society, religiousminoritieswere subject to strict
rulesandconditions.Forexample,interculturalsexualrelationswithChristianwomen
werestrictlyprohibitedinordertoprotectthewomen’s‘purity’,theCantigasdeSanta
María contain anti-Semitic stereotypes,107 Christians were prohibited from eating,
drinkingandbathingwith Jews,108and Jewswere legally restricted fromoccupying
positionsofauthorityoverChristians109(although inpractice,severalelite Jewsdid
holdsuchpositionsinAlfonso’sowncourt).110DwayneE.Carpenterusestextfromthe
SietePartidastoarguethatinthetimeofAlfonsoX,Jewish-Christianrelationswere
103Menocal,p.319104Menocal,pp.225-226105SimonDoubleday,TheWiseKing:AChristianPrince,MuslimSpainandtheBirthoftheRenaissance(NewYork:BasicBooks,2015)p.xxv106Doubleday,p.64107Doubleday,p.64108DwayneE.Carpenter,‘MinoritiesinMedievalSpain:TheLegalStatusofJewsandMuslimsintheSietePartidas’,RomanceQuarterly33:3(1986),275-287,282109Carpenter,279110Carpenter,280
160
largelyonesofambivalence,erringonthesideofslightlygrudgingtolerance,which
‘were defined and ofttimes determined by historico-theological considerations,’
referring to Christian resentment of the Jews’ refusal to acknowledge Jesus as the
Messiah,andtheirroleinhisdeath,butwhilstalsorecognisingtheirpositivequalities:
Alfonso extols Jewish prowess in battle and their ‘distinguished ancestry’.Muslim-
Christianrelations,however,Carpentergoesontoexplain,wereevencooler: Islam
wasviewedbyChristianswithamixtureof‘religiousantipathyandpoliticalfear’,111
andChristianswhoconvertedtoIslamweredeemedguiltyofgreattreason,withthe
punishmentbeinglossofallpossessions.112Incontrasttothereligiousovertonesof
Jewish-Christian relations, Muslim-Christian relations were viewed much more
politically, being ‘governed by pragmatic concerns resulting from religio-bellicose
confrontations’. 113 After all, this was an era of territorial expansion, and the
Reconquista campaigns were still ongoing. 114 In his use of texts to disseminate
monarchicalpropaganda,AlfonsoXplantedaseedthatwouldlaterbloominworks
suchastheCPSF,asIwillshowinChapter3.
The Cantigas de Santa María, briefly mentioned above, are a collection of 420
devotional songs to the Virgin, produced by a collaboration of authors, although
Alfonsohimselfisthoughttohavepersonallybeenactiveinthepreparationof‘agreat
111Carpenter,276112Carpenter,278113Carpenter,276114FurtherinformationaboutinterculturalrelationsinmedievalSpaincanbefoundinworkbyAméricoCastro–seeLarealidadhistóricaenEspaña,(Mexico:EditorialPorrúa,1954);H.SalvadorMartínez,LaconvivenciaenlaEspañadelsigloXIII,(Madrid:Poliferno,2006);ManuelGonzálezJiménez,‘AlfonsoXylasminoríasconfesionalesdemudéjaresyjudíos’,MiguelRodríguezLlopis(Coord.)AlfonsoX:AportacionesdeunreycastellanoalaconstruccióndeEuropa(Murcia:RegióndeMurcia,ConsejeríadeCulturayEducación,1997)pp.71-90
161
part’ofthecollection.115Doubledayhaswrittenthattheking’smanyandsignificant
healthproblems,aboutwhichmoreiswrittenlater,arelikelytohave‘heightenedhis
devotion toMary’.116Salvador Martínez states that the collection, which had been
startedin1257,117wascompletedbetween1277and1284,duringwhichtimeAlfonso
wassufferingfromseveralseriousphysicalailments,andwhilsthissonSanchowas
carryingoutthedutiesofmuchoftheroleofmonarch,followinghisrebellion.118Itwas
alsoduringthistimethatAlfonsocompletedhisbookonchessandothergames,the
Librodeacedrex,dadosetablas.119Chess,asDoubledayhaswritten,wasaprestigious
gameofmystiquethatwas‘intimatelyassociatedwiththeIslamicworld’,andofwhich
themilitary and political connotationswould have been hard tomiss, particularly
withinthecontextandperiodofitsproduction.120
Thesignificanceofallofthiscontext-settingforthe(digital)editorofworksfromand
closely related to theAlfonsine project is thatwith a greater understanding of the
contextduringwhichtheworkswereproduced(andbearinginmindthatsomeofthe
workswereeditedtosuitthechangingcircumstancesoftheking,hisquestforempire
andhisrelationshiptothenobles)aneditorismoreabletomakeinformeddecisions
aboutwhattoincludeandwhatnottoincludeinanedition.Thisisparticularlythe
casewithdigitaleditionsoverprinteditions,sinceintheorytheeditorcouldincludea
greatdealmoreinformation,morereadings,morecollatedtexts,andmoretoolsthan
115SalvadorMartínez,AlfonsoX,theLearned,pp.217-228116Doubleday,p.181117SalvadorMartínez,AlfonsoX,theLearned,p.250118SalvadorMartínez,AlfonsoX,theLearned,pp.518-519119JensT.Wollesen,‘Subspecieludi…TextandImagesinAlfonsoelSabio’sLibrodeAcedrex,DadoseTablas’,ZeitschriftfürKunstgeschichte53:3(1990)277-308,277120Doubleday,p.12
162
aprinteditorcould.AsIarguedinChapterOne,however,andreturningtoRobinson’s
phrase,‘ourresourcesarefinite,andrequireustochoosewhereweplaceoureffort’,121
and since editions aremade to be used by readers or users122, and not to fulfil an
editor’sownpersonalpreferencesorego,theperceivedneedsofthepotentialusersof
theedition(andimaginedneedsoffutureusers,asfarasispossible)shouldbeatthe
forefrontoftheeditor’smindwhenmakingeditorialdecisions.Whenaneditorhasa
clearunderstandingofthecontextofthetextbeingedited,itssignificanceforscholars,
and how and why it is studied, she has more of the information needed to make
informeddecisionsaboutwheretoplaceherresourcesandeffortswhenpreparingthe
edition.
2.1.6Alfonsoandthenobility
Sinceweknowfromafore-citedworksbyLinehan,FrakerandHazbun,thatmuchof
theAlfonsineoeuvre,andspecificallythehistories,werepropagandisticanddidactic
innature,andwealsoknowthatthereareseveralversionsoftheEstoriadeEspanna
producedduringandjustafterthereignofAlfonso,someofthecontentofwhichwas
editedtoreflectthechangingpoliticalcircumstancesoftheexternalcontextofthetext,
itisnecessarytolookhereinmoredetailattheking’sevolvingrelationshipwiththe
121Robinson‘TowardsaTheoryofDigitalEditions’,106122Thismayappearonlyasemanticissue,butcustomarily,thosewhouseprintededitionsareoftenreferredtoas‘readers’,whilstthosewhousedigitaleditionsare‘users’.Thisissignificant,asitshowsthatdigitaleditionusersaremuchmorelikelytoadapttheeditionasatool,anduseitdifferently,accordingtotheirownspecificneeds.Thisismucheasiertodowithdigitaleditionsthanprintededitions,forreasonsIhopetohavemadeclearinChapterOne.Sincethisthesisisprimarilyconcernedwithdigitaleditions,Iwillusetheterm‘users’ofeditiontorefertothosewhouse/readtheedition.
163
nobility.Asabove,withoutaclearunderstandingoftherelationshipbetweentheking
andthenobles,aneditoroftheAlfonsinehistories(andbyextensionpost-Alfonsine
histories)wouldbeinaweakerpositionwhenitcomestomakingeditorialjudgements
aboutwhattoincludeinadigitaledition.Forexample,asIwillshowinChapterThree,
inthetranslatedsectionoftheCPSF,Ihavetakenthedecisiontoprovideannotations
availableonmouse-over,andincludedintheseisadescriptionoftheroleofasmany
as possible of the noblesmentioned by name.Having a solid understanding of the
changingrelationshipbetweenthemonarchandthenobilityinthethirteenth-century,
and the use of both the text of the Alfonsine oeuvre and the CPSF as a means of
managingthebehaviourofrebelliousnobles,ledmetotheconclusionthatusersofthe
editionwhoarenotalreadyaufait,mayfinditusefultoknowwhothesenoblesare,to
helpthemunderstandwhytheyappearintheCPSF.
WehaveseenabovethatthecontentofthelegislativetextswithintheAlfonsineoeuvre
wasasourceofcontentionforthenobility,atatimewhenthepositionandprivileges
to which they were accustomed were being challenged. A further point of major
contentionbetweenthekingandthenobleswastheissueoffundinghistallerandhis
campaigntobecomeHolyRomanEmperor,particularlyinthefinancialcontextofthe
era. Within a year of becoming king, thanks for the most part to the costs of the
expensiveReconquista campaigns, a financial crisis that had started in the reignof
Fernando III came toahead.123Thekingdomwas ‘practicallybankrupt’,124and in a
123Mackay,p.101124SalvadorMartínez,AlfonsoX,theLearned,p.113
164
situationof‘enormousinflation’.125Toattempttotacklethis,Alfonsoinstigatedstrict
priceregulations:thecotos.Alongsidethis,thekingestablished‘drasticmeasures’to
prohibit ostentation and luxury, to protect natural resources for the benefit of the
agriculturalsectorandtoprevent the freemovementofgoodsandmerchandise.126
Theregulations,manyofwhichappearinthePartidas,removedmanyoftheprivileges
traditionallyenjoyedbythenobility.127Scholarsaredividedastotheextenttowhich
Alfonsowas justifiedin instigatingsuchstrictregulations.Kellerdescribesthelaws
prohibitingostentationas‘anefforttostifletheenvyfeltbythepoorfortherich’and
statesAlfonsowas‘fartoogenerousandfree-handedwiththenobility’andaltogether
‘morelenient’thanhisfatherhadbeen,128–itisworthnoting,however,thattherules
againstostentationdidnotstretchtorestrictingthebehaviourofthekinghimself,who
allowed his eldest son a lavishwedding in 1269, further alienating the nobility.129
Linehan, incomparison,goesas faras todescribeAlfonso’slawsas theactionsofa
‘controlfreak’,130andofone‘detachedfromreality’,131statingthat‘acultureofcontrol
pervaded the kingdom’.132It is safe to say that the lawswere ‘strongly resisted by
townsandnoblesalike’.133
A furthercauseof financialdifficulties for thekingdom,andthereforeanadditional
sourceoftensionbetweenthekingandthenobility,wasasilvershortage.Thesilver
125JosephO’Callaghan,TheCortesofCastile-Leon1188-1350(Philadelphia:UniversityofPennsylvaniaPress,1989)p.21126SalvadorMartínez,AlfonsoX,theLearned,p.114127Mackay,p,101128Keller,pp.33-34129SalvadorMartínez,AlfonsoX,theLearned,p.186130Linehan,p.118131Linehan,p.115132Linehan,p.119133Mackay,p.99
165
contentofcoinswastoohigh,soeachcoinwasmorevaluableasacommoditythanits
facevalue.Thisledtocoin-hoardingbythewealthy,manyofwhomwerenobles.The
resultofthiswasascarcityofcoins,andthereforepriceincreases,aspeoplecouldnot
affordtopurchasethegoodstheyrequired.134Theseincreasesshowthatmerchants
hadstoppedobeyingthecotos,andAlfonsowasforcedtoremovethem.135Hisreaction
inthe1252CortesofSevillewastoimplementtheposturas–currencyregulationsto
control hoarding, prices and exports,136using a systemof taxation137– and slightly
longer-termtouseasystemofquantitativeeasing,bymintingcoinswithalowersilver
contentbetween1256and1263,138soreducingthescarcityofcoinsintheeconomy
anddevaluingthecurrency.139Alfonsohadthereforetakenmeasurestotrytoprevent
thehoardingofthecurrentcoins,andhadpreventedfuturehoardingbydevaluingthe
newcoins,making themunworthyof thepractice. Indoing sohehad ‘enraged the
populace’.140Hissubjectswere‘incensed’bysuchmeasuresasthedevaluationofcoins
and the cotos, as well as the inflation and scarcity that had provoked Alfonso’s
response,andtheystoppedcomplyingwiththenewlaws.141Alfonso’sresponsetoa
crisisnotstartedbyhisdoing,butwhichreachedacriticalpointduringhisreign,was
toproducemorelegislation:furtherevidenceofhowhispolitico-culturaloeuvrewas
usedinhisquesttomaintainhiscontrolwithinhisownkingdom.Lateron,heusesa
134SalvadorMartínez,AlfonsoX,theLearned,p.115135SalvadorMartínez,AlfonsoX,theLearned,p.115136SalvadorMartínez,AlfonsoX,theLearned,p.115137JeanGautierDalché,‘Lapolitiquemonetaireetfiscaled’AlphonseXrevisitéeparGuillermoCastánLanaspa’,Alcanate(2004-2005)315-352,328138JoséLuisBrañaPastor,andAntonioRomaValdés,‘NotassobreunamonedadeAlfonsoXdeCastillaydeLeón’,Gacetanumismática142(2001)(PDFversion)1-5,1,http://www.numisane.org/Gaceta/GN142.pdf[accessed04/07/2014]139SalvadorMartínez,AlfonsoX,theLearned,p.186140Keller,p.34141SalvadorMartínez,AlfonsoX,theLearned,p.113-115
166
similar tool, but with the Estoria de Espanna, which he edits, in response to the
behaviour of his son and eventual successor Sancho.142The relevance of this for a
digital editor is that knowing that edits have been made according to a changing
politicalcontextwouldleadsomescholarstowanttostudywhathasbeenchanged,in
ordertodrawconclusionsaboutthetextualtransmissionofthechronicle.Thiscould
notbedoneusinganedition if, forexample,suchemendationshavebeenremoved
withtheobjectiveofhypothesisinganauthorialoriginal,orifthetextthatappearsin
the digital edition is from only one witness. As such, understanding the historical
contextofthetextisfundamentalininforminghowthetextiseditediftheeditorhopes
toprovideaneditionwhichisfitforthepurposesofacertainintendedaudience(in
thisparticularexample,scholarsoftheperiod).
Despitethefinancialcrisis,however,throughextraordinarytaxationandforcedloans,
Alfonsostillfoundthemeanstofinancemanyoftheactivitieswhichmanifestedhis
quest for increased power outside his own kingdom too, including his imperial
aspirations.143This distressed the townsmen, andwas a further source of growing
oppositionamongstthenobles.144ItalsoshowsthatLinehan’scommentof theking
being‘detachedfromreality,’145scathingasitis,maynotbewideofthemark.Quoting
fromthesecondoftheSietePartidas,146O’Callaghanexplainsthattheking‘justifiedhis
requestforspecialtaxesingeneralbystating[inthesegundapartida]that“theking
142Fernández-Ordóñez,‘Latransmisióntextual’,p.231143JosephO’Callaghan,‘TheCortesandRoyalTaxationDuringtheReignofAlfonsoXofCastile’,Traditio27(1971)379-398,380144O’Callaghan,AHistoryofMedievalSpainp.372;Coates,p.107145Linehan,p.115146AlfonsoX,SietePartidas,SegundaPartida,tit.1,ley8,vol.II
167
candemandandtakefromthekingdomwhatotherkingswhoprecededhimusedto
do.”.’147Such a phrase can hardly be seen as an olive branch to the nobles,whose
resentmentwasmounting.
ThesituationofdisharmonybetweenAlfonsoandthenobilityintensifiedthroughout
hisreign,manifestingitselfinaseriesofsmall-andmedium-scalerebellions,thelarge-
scalerebellionofthenoblesatLermain1272,andintheeventualpracticaldeposition
ofthekinginallbuttitle,ledbyhissonSancho.Themotivesforthenobles’rebellion
of1272,asseenabove,lieintheirhostilitytowardsAlfonso’slegislativereforms,his
economicandfiscalpolicies,andtheevolvingconceptofroyalauthorityoftheking’s
positionabovethenobles,ratherthanthepreviouspositionoffirstamongstequals.148
TherebellionagainstAlfonsowasnotviolent,andwastherefore,accordingtoCarrión
Gutiérrez,notaformalrupture,butwasneverthelessablowforthekingandsignalled
theendofanycollaborationbetweenAlfonsoandthenobility.149Attheassemblyin
BurgosinSeptember1272,havinggainedthesupportoftheMarinidemir,Yusuf,as
wellasAlfonso’sbrotherFelipe,therebelsconfrontedAlfonsowiththeirdemandsfor
changestohislevyingofextraordinarytaxes,150andtherestorationoftheirprivileges
andtheoldlegalcodes(thefuerosviejos).151Thecrisishadreachedsuchastagethat
at this point, that Alfonso did offer the nobles an olive branch, and he agreed to
practically all of the rebels’ demands,152 including the restoration of many of the
147O’Callaghan,‘TheCortesandRoyalTaxation’,378148CarriónGutiérrez,p.34149CarriónGutiérrez,p.33150O’Callaghan,AHistoryofMedievalSpain,p.373151SalvadorMartínez,AlfonsoX,theLearned,p.329152SalvadorMartínez,AlfonsoX,theLearned,p.330
168
traditionalcustomsofthenobility.Asaresult,theking’splanstounifythelawsofthe
realmwereseriouslymoderated.153Theonlycaseonwhichhewasimmovablewasthe
issueoffinancinghismissiontobecrownedEmperoroftheHolyRomanEmpire,154
andinreturnforhisconcessionsregardingthelegalcodes,hewasgrantedoneannual
taxlevyuntiltheconclusionofhisquest.155
Despite having yielded to the nobles on many issues, Alfonso’s careful political
posturing at theBurgos cortes enabled him to avoid a full-scale rebellion, andwas
therefore considered a success on his part. Custom then allowed the rebels three
options:toacceptthedecisionsoftheirking,todeclarewaragainsthim,ortogointo
exile. The rebels, including members of Alfonso’s family and some of his close
childhood friends, chose the latter option, and made their way towards Granada,
destroyingtownsandlandsontheirwayandcausinganenragedAlfonsotoreactwith
amilitaryconfrontationofthedefectors.156However,givenhisneedforthesupportof
thenoblesshouldawarbreakoutagainsttheMoorsoranotherChristiankingdom,or
in the case of another revolt by theMudéjars, Alfonsowas forced towithdrawhis
troops once they had stopped the rebels’ destruction of the towns and lands. This
withdrawal was considered by many at the time as a sign of weakness in the
monarch.157ThekingofGranada,Ibnal-Ahmar,welcomedtherebels,manyofwhom
hadsignedapactofallegiancetohim,buthediedsoonaftertheyarrived.158Therethe
153O’Callaghan,AHistoryofMedievalSpain,p.373154SalvadorMartínez,AlfonsoX,theLearned,p.330155O’Callaghan,AHistoryofMedievalSpain,p.373156SalvadorMartínez,AlfonsoX,theLearned,pp.333-334157SalvadorMartínez,AlfonsoX,theLearned,pp.334-335158O’Callaghan,AHistoryofMedievalSpain,p.374
169
rebelsremained,untilin1274,followingnegotiationswithAlfonsoX,theyreturnedto
Castile-Leon. According to O’Callaghan, it was the reconciliation with the defected
noblesandthenewly-restoredpeacewithGranadathatallowedAlfonsotopreparefor
hisjourneytoseethePopeinBeaucaire,forwhathehopedwouldbethesuccessful
endofthetwenty-yearquestforempire159thathadbeen,withoutdoubt,‘elfenómeno
másimportantedesupolíticaexterior’.160
2.1.7Alfonsoandthequestforempire
Alfonso’squestforincreasedpower,andinparticularhisaspirationofbeingcrowned
emperoroftheHolyRomanEmpireshapedhispoliticsandhispolitico-culturaloeuvre
foralmosttwodecades(1256-1275).Duringthistime,Alfonsospentagreatdealof
time, energy andmoney (that his kingdom did not have) striving to convince the
papacy of his legitimacy as candidate for the imperial crown; a quest that was
eventuallyshowntobeunobtainable.SalvadorMartínezexplainsthatAlfonso’sclaim
of candidacywas based on both his genealogical and dynastic background and his
ideology of the absolutist nature of kingship.161He goes on to argue thatAlfonso’s
ambitiontobecomeemperorwasbasedonthepersonalandpoliticalprestigethatthe
role would bring him, as well as economic improvements in Spain and a wider
dissemination of his politico-cultural oeuvre. 162 However, due to papal hostility
159O’Callaghan,AHistoryofMedievalSpain,p.374160CarriónGutiérrez,p.64161SalvadorMartínez,AlfonsoX,theLearned,p.121162SalvadorMartínez,AlfonsoX,theLearned,p.124
170
towardsmembersoftheHohenstaufenfamily,towhichAlfonsowasrelatedthrough
thematernalline,163fourpopes(AlexanderIV,UrbanIV,ClementIVandGregoryX)
refusedtoacknowledgeAlfonso’scandidacy for theelectionofemperorbygiving it
theirblessing.KellerexplainsthatGregoryXtookafurtherstepbywritingtoAlfonso
instructinghimtowithdrawhisclaim,andtotheelectorsinstructingthemonlytovote
foracandidatewhowasoneoftheGermanprinces.164WhenAlfonsolearnedthatthe
popehadconfirmedthenewlyelectedKingoftheRomansasRudolfofHabsburgin
1273,hedecidedtogotowartosettlehisimperialclaim,butbeforethiscouldtake
placeheagreedtomeetwithGregoryXinBeaucaire,France.Bythisstagetheheavy
financialburdenofthecostsofhisimperialaspirations,bearinginmindthefinancial
strainthekingdomhadalreadybeenunder,wastakingitstollonthenobles,whowere
bynowin‘openopposition’tohisquest.165Nevertheless,Alfonsomadearrangements,
leavinghiseldestsonFernandodelaCerdainchargeofhiskingdom,andbeganhis
journeytoFrance,spendingamonthonthewaystayingwithhis father-in-lawand
advisor,theAragonesekingJamesI.166Amoreexperiencedpolitician,andhavingmet
withthepopeanddiscussedthismatter,JamesattemptedtodissuadeAlfonsofrom
attendingthemeeting,tonoavail,andapartyofnoblesincludingbothkingsleftfor
FranceinJanuary1275.AlfonsofinallyarrivedinBeaucaireinMayofthatyear.167
163Doubleday,p.78164Keller,p.34165Keller,p.35166Catalan:JaumeI,elConqueridor;Castilian:JaimeI,elConquistador167SalvadorMartínez,AlfonsoX,theLearned,pp.196-205
171
2.1.81275:Alfonso’sannushorribilis
Theeventsof1275andtheiroutcomeswouldleadtheyeartobecomeAlfonso’sannus
horribilis,andfundamentallychangedthepoliticsofthelatterpartofhisreign,andby
extensionhispolitico-culturalproject.Itwasduringtheearlysummerofthisyearthat
AlfonsolearnthisclaimstobecomeEmperorwereultimatelyunsuccessful,despitethe
time, effort and money he had poured into his quest. The king was given a stark
ultimatumbyPopeGregoryX:ifhefailedtoacceptthepope’sdecisionhewouldbe
excommunicated–aterribleandhumiliatingpunishmentforapiousking–butifhe
admitteddefeatandacceptedthepope’sdecision,Castilewouldbegrantedatenthof
Spain’secclesiasticalincome,tobeusedinthewarsagainsttheMoors.Thedevoutly
religiouskingwas leftwithnochoicebut toconcede,168andthismarkedtheendof
Alfonso’simperialaspirations.169Humiliatedindefeat,thekingbeganhisjourneyback
toCastileinthehighsummerof1275.170
However, Alfonso’s misfortunes of 1275 did not stop at his contretemps with the
pope:171during his journey home he learned of the deaths, amongst others, of his
brotherdonManuel,hisnephewdonAlfonsoManuel,hisdaughterEleanor,andofthe
MerinidinvasiontosouthernSpain.Cruciallyfortheissueofhissuccession,healso
learnedofthedeathofhissonandheir,FernandodelaCerda.Additionally,perhaps
168Keller,p.35169FranciscoBautista,AlfonsoXelSabio:Cronología<http://www.cervantesvirtual.com/bib/bib_autor/alfonsoelsabio/pcuartonivela972.html?conten=cronologia>[accessed17/06/2014]170SalvadorMartínez,AlfonsoX,theLearned,p.208171Keller,p35
172
perpetuatedbysomuchbadnewsinsuchashorttime,Alfonsowasgravelyill.Alfonso
wassufferingwithwhatmayhavebeenanadvancedmaxillarycancerthroughouthis
difficult journeyback fromBeaucaire.172Furthermore,scholarsbelieve thatAlfonso
mayhavehasdepression,perhapscausedorexacerbatedbyhisgreatphysicalpain.173
Doubledaywarns that ‘retrospective diagnoses are dangerous’, and it is, of course,
impossible tosaywith certaintyexactlywhatailments thekingwassuffering from
someeightcenturieslater,butwedoknowthatAlfonsowas‘desperatelyill’:hewas
bedboundforlongperiods–sometimesmonthsonend–andwecanreadinthelyrics
of the Cantigas, several of which were written by Alfonso himself, of the author’s
dreams for the end to pain and suffering.174By Christmas the king had arrived in
Burgos,depressedbyhisfailureandpersonalloss,andweakthroughillness.175
2.1.9Eventsfollowing1275:theissueofsuccessionandAlfonso’stimeinSeville
SuchanundignifiedfailureonthepartofAlfonsoXonlyservedtoincreasethenobles’
hostility towards him, given his lavish spending on his cultural projects and his
unsuccessful quest for the imperial title.176In their view, Alfonsowas squandering
moneythattherealmdidnothave,bankruptinghiskingdom.177Uponlearningofhis
brother’s death, Alfonso’s secondson Sanchodeclared himself heir apparent of his
172RichardKinkade,‘AlfonsoX,Cantiga235,andtheEventsof1269-1275’,Speculum67:2(1992)284-323,285173SalvadorMartínez,AlfonsoX,theLearned,pp.284-289174Doubleday,pp.176-179175SalvadorMartínez,AlfonsoX,theLearned,pp.208-212176SalvadorMartínez,AlfonsoX,theLearned,p.186177Keller,p.35
173
father’skingdom,ratherthanhisnephew,AlfonsodelaCerda,thesonofFernando.178
Thematter of successionwas complicated by the fact the laws of successionwere
evolving duringAlfonso’s reign: the Castilian traditionwas that the kingwould be
succeededbyhiseldestson,andintheeventofthefirstsonpredeceasingtheking,the
second son, and so on.179However, as O’Callaghan explains, the Espéculo (c.1260)
statedthatthesuccessortothethronewouldbetheking’seldestson,ordaughterif
therewerenosons,butdidnotconsiderthepossibilityofthesuccessorpredeceasing
theking,andthePartidas(c.1265)statedthatiftheeldestsonpredeceasedtheking
then the king’s grandson would succeed him. 180 Robert MacDonald discusses a
rewrittenversionofthetext,datedtoafter1276,andinfluencedbytheissueofwho
shouldsucceedAlfonsoX,whichstatesthattheking’ssecondsonwouldsucceedhim,
rather than thesonofhis firstborn son.181MacDonaldexplainsAlfonso’sdilemma:
eitherhecouldfollowhisownlegalcodesandrecognisehisgrandsonAlfonsodela
Cerdaasheir,therebyriskingyetanotherrebellionbythenobles,orcoulddesignate
Sanchoashissuccessor,therebydamagingtheprestigeofhisownlegalcodebyhisnot
havingfollowedit,aswellashisprideforhavingyieldedtothenobles.Havingdoneso
onpreviousoccasions,Alfonsowaseagernottodothisagain.182Again,wereturnto
theimplicationfordigitaleditors:withoutasolidunderstandingofthefactthattexts
oftheAlfonsineoeuvrewereeditedinthelightofachangingpoliticalcontext,andof
whythismightbe,asweseeherethePartidasbeingchangedafter1276,aneditormay
178Keller,p.36179SalvadorMartínez,AlfonsoX,theLearned,p.370180O’Callaghan,TheLearnedKing,p.237181RobertMacDonald,‘AlfonsotheLearnedandSuccession:AFather’sDilemma’,Speculum40:4(1965)647-653,651182MacDonald,p.652
174
not appreciate the importance for scholars of retaining variants where these
emendationshavetakenplace,andmayremovethem.Indoingso,hemayrenderthe
editionfarlessusefulforcertainusers,andassuch,thisshouldbeavoidedwherever
possiblebyensuringhehasacleargroundingandsolidunderstandingofthehistorical
contextandsignificanceofthetext.
Kellersuccinctlydescribesthemainpointsofwhathappenednext:Alfonsosummoned
ameetingofthenoblesandaskedfortheirconsiderationofSanchoasheir.Meanwhile,
Alfonso’s wife Violante and Fernando’s wife Blanche had fled to Aragon with
Fernando’s two sons, the infantes de la Cerda, where Violante’s father had been
succeededbyherbrotherPedro.UnderSancho’spersuasion,Pedro imprisoned the
youngprinceslesttheybetakenbacktoCastilebyoneofAlfonso’ssupporters.Alfonso,
awarethatSanchohadarrangedtheimprisonmentofthelegalheirofCastile,pleaded
theboys’casewithSancho,whorefusedtoreleasethechildren.Sanchowasjoinedby
twoofhisbrothers,PedroandJuan,thekingofPortugal,alargegroupofnoblemen
andmany of the Castilian people. Even Violante joined her son’s side.Meanwhile,
AlfonsofledtoSeville,theonlycitythathadnotabandonedhim,whereheremained
until his death. 183 There, effectively deposed by his son in all but title, the king
continuedworkonhisoeuvre,anddespitehissignificanthealthissuesandtheworries
of his abandonment by most of his family, the nobility andmuch of his kingdom,
withoutcompromisingonquality,theprolificacyofhisworkincreased.184
183ÁngelesMasiadeRos,‘LaspretensionesdelosInfantesdelaCerdaalacoronadeCastillaentiemposdeSanchoIVyFernandoIV.Elapoyoaragonés’,Medievalia10(1992)255-279,257184SalvadorMartínez,AlfonsoX,theLearned,p.518
175
2.1.10ThesuccessionofSanchoIV
Upon learning of Sancho’s behaviour towards his father, Pope Martin V
excommunicatedtheprince,andissuedacalltoarmsagainsthimbytheFrenchand
theEnglish.Theking’ssonsPedroandJuanreturnedtoAlfonso’sside,andhewasalso
joinedbyhiseldestdaughterBerenguela.ScholarsaredividedastowhetherAlfonso
forgavehissonbeforehisdeath:aletterfromAlfonsotothepopeinearlyMarch1284
suggeststhathehad,althoughitispossiblethatthismayhavebeenaforgery,185and
perhapstheworkofawell-meaningscribe.Uponhisdeathon4April1284,Alfonso
wassucceededbyhissecondson,whobecameKingSanchoIV.186
Withinfiveyearsofhisfather’sdeath,thenewkingtookituponhimselftoreturnto
theEstoriadeEspannawithaviewtocompletingitandmakingsomereadjustments
accordingtohisownpolitics.SanchodidnotcompletetheEstoria,however,andrather
than reaching the reign of his father, as had been Alfonso’s original goal, the text
finishesattheyear1243.TheSanchineversionisknownastheVersiónamplificada
and has been dated to 1289.187Francisco Bautista’s 2006 study presents themost
significantchangestothetextthatcanbeattributedtotheSanchineversion.Healso
providesausefulstemmatoshowtherelationshipsbetweentheroyalversionsofthe
EstoriadeEspanna:188
185Doubleday,pp.223-224186Keller,pp.36-37187FranciscoBautista,LaEstoriadeEspañaenépocadeSanchoIV:SobrelosreyesdeAsturias,PapersoftheMedievalHispanicResearchSeminar50(London:DepartmentofHispanicStudies,QueenMary,UniversityofLondon,2006)pp.7-12188Bautista,LaEstoriadeEspañaenépocadeSanchoIV,p.10
176
Figure2:StemmashowingtherelationshipbetweentheroyalversionsoftheEstoriadeEspanna,reproducedfromBautista(2006)
Inarecentconferencepresentation,Hijanoarguedthatthelacunaeinthe1289text
arenotbecause(followingCatalán)thesourcetextwasmissingsections,butrather
thatthesesectionswereverysensitiveforSanchoIV.189Theimplicationofthisforthe
digitaleditorisastrengtheningoftheargumentfordigitaleditionstoprovideusers
witharangeofversionsoftheCPSF,wheretranscriptionsofwitnessescanbeaccessed.
Italsoshowsuswhyscholarsmaychoosenottousesingle-witness,Lachmannian,or
best-texteditions,asinformationsuchasthiswouldbelostifonecouldnotcompare
onewitnesswithanother.
189ManuelHijanoVillegas,Procedimientosparalaconstruccióndelpasadoenla‘crónicasgenerales’,ColoquioInternacional“Hispano-medievalismoyCríticaTextual:40añosdelSECRIT(1978-2018)BuenosAires,9-11May2018
177
2.1.11Sectionconclusion
In this chapter so far I have situated theEstoria de Espannawithin the rest of the
Alfonsineoeuvreofsocio-politicalintellectualworks,andshownhowtheoeuvreitself
relatestothewiderpoliticsduringthereignofAlfonsoX.Ihavearguedthatthecontent
ofhistallerwasbothacauseandaneffectofthewiderpoliticalcontext,andthatrather
thanbeingapastimefortheking,wasakeycomponentofhispolitics,muchofwhich
revolved around his quest for increased power, and which both affected and was
affectedbytheeventstakingplaceinandaroundCastileduringhisreign.Ihavealso
shownthatwithhishistoricaltexts,whichAlfonsousedasapoliticaltooltolegitimate,
reinforce,andextendhispowerintothepast,thekingwaspronetorevisithistextand
edititinthelightofthechangingpoliticalcontext.Thisisparticularlythecasewiththe
Estoria de Espanna,whichwe know existed in three versions duringhis reign: the
Versiónprimitiva (1270-1274), theVersiónenmendadade despuésde 1274, and the
Versióncrítica(1282-1284),190makingAlfonsotheoriginaleditorofthetext.
Contextual information is crucial for textual scholars and editors dealing with
Alfonso’s historical works. We can return here to Linehan, who tells us that the
relevanceofhissocio-culturalprojectwaswiderthanitmightinitiallyappearatface
value, andwas both amanifestation ofhis powerwithin hisown kingdom, and an
attempttostrengthenhisquestforpoweroutsidehiskingdom,throughhisimperial
aspirations,meaninghislegitimacyasanimperialcandidate,andthepositionofCastile
190Fernández-Ordóñez,‘VariaciónenelmodeloalfonsíenelsigloXIII’,p.42
178
withintherestofIberia,andwithinChristendom.191Theeventsleadingupto1275and
thosethattookplacethatyearfundamentallychangedAlfonsoasamonarch,afather
and,ofrelevanceforus,aspatronorauthorofhismanyworks.TheAlfonsineworks
after1275weredifferent from thosebefore:notonlywere theymoreprolific than
beforehisannushorribilis,severalofhisworkswererewrittenoremendedfollowing
thisperiod.Between1277and1283thekingcompletedtheCantigasdeSantaMaría,
the first fourpartsof theGeneralEstoria, anewly-edited redactionofhiswork the
Estoria de Espanna (theVersión crítica), two bookson chess andothergames, and
possibly a book on horses, and aided in the translation of a book on animals that
hunt.192SalvadorMartínezpointsoutthatAlfonsogivesusareasonfortheincreasein
theworkonhisoeuvreintheprologuetohisLibrosdeaxedrez,dadosetablas,where
hestatesthathavingpastimessuchasmusicandboardgameswereinventedbyGod
assolaceforworrisometimes,193butalsoarguesthatAlfonso’seffortsinthecultural
sphere, particularly after his defeat in Beaucaire, may be able to be attributed to
compensation on the part of the king for his politicalweakness.194After 1275 the
monarch suddenly found himself humiliated in defeat, not to mention with
significantlymore time on his hands for activities such asworking on his cultural
project.ContinuingtoworkonhisoeuvrewouldhavebeenforAlfonsoawaynotonly
ofbusyinghimselfatwhatmusthavebeenapersonallyharrowingtime,takinginto
accounthis‘insatiableappetite’forallthingsintellectual,195butalsoawaytocontinue
topromotethelanguageandcultureofCastilewhenhecouldnolongerpromotehis
191Linehan,p.118192SalvadorMartínez,AlfonsoX,theLearned,pp.518-519193SalvadorMartínez,AlfonsoX,theLearned,p.519194SalvadorMartínez,AlfonsoX,theLearned,p.216195Linehan,p.131
179
ownpower,sincehissonhadallbutdeposedhim,removingalmostallofhispoweras
monarchandcarryingoutmuchoftheactivityinvolvedinrulingthekingdomhimself.
Domínguez Rodríguez makes an interesting point in her interpretation of the
presentationofAlfonsoinhisportraitsinvariouscodicesofhisoeuvre:intheCantigas
deSantaMaría(EscorialT.I.1.(T)andEscorialb.I.2(E)),theGeneralEstoria(part
IV)(VaticanUrb.lat.539)196andtheEstoriadeEspanna(E1)(EscorialY.I.2)wesee
Alfonso dressed in luxurious clothes adorned with gold, which would suggest his
imperialquestwasstillongoing;inthethreeexamplesofportraitsofthekinginthe
LibrodelosJuegos(Escorial,T.I.6)wefindAlfonso’scloakadornednotwithgoldbut
with castles and lions, the emblems of his kingdoms. This, Domínguez Rodríguez
argues,suggeststhatthelatterwaswrittenafter1275whenAlfonsonolongerheld
allusionstobecomeemperor,andasaresultwasmoreinterestedinhighlightinghis
role as monarch of Castile-Leon. 197 This also has implications for editors, who,
whereverpossible,shouldtakeintoaccountfeaturessuchasthisandconsiderthem
partof thetext,as intentionalandmeaningfulmarksdesignedtoberead,referring
backtoBordalejo’sdefinitionabove,198eventhoughwe,asreadersofthesemarks,are
interpreting images,andnotwriting, ItalsoremindsusofShillingsburg’scomment,
citedabove,thatscholarsworkingonaneditionmaynotallagreeonwhichmarksare
meaningfulandwhicharenot.199Withoutaclearunderstandingofthesignificanceof
suchadifferenceinthepresentationofthemonarch,oratleast,withouthavingcarried
196DomínguezRodríguezgivestheMSnumberas593,butfromlookingattheVaticanlibrarywebsite,Ibelievethisisatypographicalerror.197DomínguezRodríguez,p.148198Bordalejo,‘TheTextsWeSee’,65-68199Shillingsburg,p.15
180
outwideresearchbeforeembarkingonanedition,aneditorwouldbeunlikelytograsp
thepotentialrelevancetousersoftheeditionofsuchadifference,andhowthismay
affectthewayinwhichthetextisedited.Forinstance,hemaychoosenottoinclude
notesonillustrationswithinthemanuscript,ifdigitalimagesofthemanuscriptarenot
availableforconsultationbyusersoftheedition(astheyarenot,forexample,forE1
and E2 of the Estoria de Espanna). The importance for an editor to have a solid
understandingofatextanditscontextinordertoprovideasmanyusersaspossible
withaneditionthatbestmeetstheirneedscannotbeoverstated.
If,aseditors,weareawarethattextsfromafter1275aredifferentfromthosebefore,
wecanmake informeddecisionsaboutwhat to include inoureditions, taking into
account the very real possibility that scholars and non-specialists are likely to be
interestedinthedifferencesbetweenredactionspriorto1275andthoseafterwards,
andtheimplicationsthishasonchoosinganeditorialstyle–particularlywhyapurely
document-centred,aLachmannian,orabest-texteditionwhere‘best’means‘oldest’
approachtoeditingmayeditout,ornottakeintoaccount,manyoftheemendations
between witnesses whichmake the Alfonsine works so interesting and important
particularlyforscholars,butalsofornon-specialists.Thisreinforcesmyargumentthat
editorsshouldtakeintoaccounttherequirementsandexpectationsoftheirpotential
userswhenmakinganedition.Thisisofevenmoreimportancefordigitaleditors,who,
asshowninChapterOne,arenotboundbythesamepracticalissuesasprinteditors,
andcanchoosetoincludemoreversionsoftheedition,withhypertextualfeatureswith
theobjectiveofbestmeetingtheneedsoftheiraudience(s).AnyeditoroftheEstoria
deEspannamustbeawarethathisreaderswillexpecttofindvariantsofboththepre-
181
andpost-1275versionsofthework.Withoutasolidunderstandingofthehistorical
contextoftheworkanditssignificance,aneditorwouldbeunabletodoso,andasa
resulthiseditionwouldbeofmuchlessuseforhispotentialaudience,andofmuch
lessrelevancetoscholarship.
Byextension,asthedigitaleditoroftheCPSF,asolidunderstandingoftheAlfonsine
oeuvre, its context and significance to scholars,will inform theeditorialdecisions I
makewhenpreparingtheeditionofthispost-Alfonsinework.Iwouldarguethatone
cannotfullyunderstandpost-AlfonsinematerialwithoutfirstunderstandingAlfonsine
material.TheeditorialdecisionsImadewillbediscussedmorefullybelow,butIwill
give an example here to illustrate my point. It is the knowledge of the way that
emendationsweremadetolaterwitnessof textsoriginallywritten in theAlfonsine
taller,accordingtothechangingpoliticalclimate,thatinformedmydecisiontoeditthe
CPSFinsuchawaythatwillallowuserstoreadthetextasitappearsinthewitnesses
Ihavetranscribed,andtopresentthesealongsideacollatedandacriticaleditionof
thetext,withtheexpectationthatsuchafeaturemaybeconsideredbeneficialtosome
users.
Priortothe2016EstoriaDigital,ofwhichthewiderprojectincludesthepresentthesis,
therewasnocomprehensiveelectroniceditionoftheEstoria,meaningitwasdifficult
forscholarstostudyindepththedifferencesbetweentherecensionsinordertodraw
conclusionsaboutwhysuchchangesmighthavebeenmadeinthechangingcontextin
whichtheywerepreparedanddesignedtoberead:fulfillingthisneedwasoneofthe
182
principal aims of the Estoria de Espanna Digital project. 200 Alongside the digital
collation,thedigitisedmanuscriptimagesandthesearchfacilitiesinWard’sedition
aredesignedtoallowscholarstostudysuchissuesmuchmoreeasily.Inreferenceto
theimpactthatthechangingpoliticalcontextofthetimehadontheAlfonsineoeuvre,
particularlytheEstoriadeEspanna,meaninghowitwasrewrittenandemendedtosuit
thechangingcontextofthetime,AengusWardarguesthattheaimofhiseditionwas
‘not to fixtheEstoria,butrathertoallowitbreathe in its textualdiversity’.201Iwill
returntothiscitationbelow.
***
Crucially important to the understanding of Alfonso’s culturalworks as partof his
interior and exterior politics, is the fact that Alfonso deliberately and explicitly
translated intoandwrotedirectly inCastilian,ratherthanLatin, forallofhisprose
works – his lyric poetry, the Cantigas de Santa María, was written in Galician (or
‘Galician-Portuguese’).ThedecisiontowritehisproseinCastilianratherthanLatinis
both linguistically complicated, and socio-politico-linguistically charged. It is this
socio-politicalchargebehindthedecisiontowriteinCastilian,alongsidethehistorical-
linguisticsignificanceofitbeingsomeoftheearliestCastilianprose,andcertainlythe
largestandearliestoeuvreinCastilian,thatmakesAlfonsineproseworthyofstudyin
thetwenty-firstcenturybyhistoricallinguistsandsociolinguists.
200MoredetailedinformationabouttheprojectcanbefoundinChapter3ofthisthesis.201TheEstoriadeEspannaDigitalproject,Methodology,http://estoria.bham.ac.uk/blog/?page_id=923[accessed20/03/2018]
183
2.2TheinterestoftheEstoriadeEspannaandtheCPSFtoscholarsofhistorical
linguisticsandsociolinguistics
Alfonso’s choice towrite his prose texts, including theEstoria, in Castilian, and to
translateintoCastiliannotasastepping-stonebetweentheoriginal(oftenArabic)and
the target language (Latin),butas the finishedproduct,202displaysa consciousand
politically-motivated decision on the part of the king. As Márquez-Villanueva has
stated,theuseofCastilianinhisoeuvreisindeedachoiceonthepartoftheking,and
not a purely practical decision to ensure the comprehension of his intended
readership,203although,he states, it is likely thatby the timeofwriting, theuse of
Castilianwouldhavemadecomprehensioneasier.204Theeffectofthelanguagewithin
theAlfonsine oeuvreon theprestige,use,orthographyand lexisofCastilianwasso
significantthat,inthewordsofStevenHartman,Alfonso‘rightlyholdsamajorplacein
the history of the Castilian language.’205Through the scribes and translators ofhis
scriptorium,uponwhomthekingkeptacloseeye,Alfonsowasaprolificwriterand
editorofprose inCastilian.Alfonsineprose isnot theearliest exampleofmedieval
Castilianprosethatisextantandavailableforstudybyscholars:forexample,Roger
Wrighthasstudiedthe1206ElTratadodeCabreros,whichexists in twoversions–
Castilian and Leonese, 206 but the Alfonsine prose texts form the largest body of
thirteenth-centuryprosetextsinCastilian,andforthisreasontheyareofgreatinterest
202G.MenéndezPidal,pp.365-366203Márquez-Villanueva,‘TheAlfonsineCulturalConcept’,p.77204Márquez-Villanueva,‘TheAlfonsineCulturalConcept’,p.79205StevenHartman,‘AlfonsoelSabioandtheVarietiesofVerbGrammar’,Hispania57:1,(March1974)48-55,48206RogerWright,ElTratadodeCabreros(1206):Estudiosociofilológicodeunareformaortográfica(London:QueenMaryandWestfieldCollege,2000)
184
to historical linguists and sociolinguists. For reasons that Iwill explain below, it is
possibletousetheAlfonsinetextstoshowtheevolutionoforthographyinCastilianin
someoftheearliestsurvivingtextstobewritteninthelanguage,whichiswhyscholars
of this topic may make use of a the Estoria Digital to study the phenomenon –
providing,ofcourse,thatthechangingorthographyhasnotbeenregularisedbythe
editor,removingtheusefulnessoftheeditionforthesescholars.Thisreiterateswhyit
issoimportantforeditorstohaveaclearunderstandingofthecontextandsignificance
of the text(s) orwork(s) being edited, if the potential usage of the digital edition
createdistobemaximised.
ScholarsstudyingthelanguageoftheAlfonsineoeuvrecouldveryfeasiblychooseto
comparethiswithmaterialfromthepost-Alfonsineperiod,toviewchangesnotonly
inorthography,but insyntax, lexicalchoice, andother linguisticandsociolinguistic
features,providingtheeditorhaspreparedtheeditioninsuchawayastoretainas
manyaspossibleofthesefeatures.AsIhavestatedabove,itisimpossibleforeditors
toenvisageallofthepotentialusesfortheiredition,anditislikelythatscholarsmay
usemyeditionoftheCPSF inwaysthatIwouldneverhavethoughtof.Thebenefits
that digital editions bring here, above print editions, is the advantage of hypertext
tools, including search functions and concordances where available, the option in
manycasestodisplayor linkto imagesof themanuscript,andtheabilityofdigital
editionstoprovidemorethanoneversionoftheedition,tosuitthedifferingneedsof
groups of users. The likelihood that scholars of historical linguisticswould use an
editiondoeshaveimplicationsforthewayinwhichabbreviatedwordsareexpanded
185
and tagged, an issue to which I will return in Chapter Three, and this should be
consideredwhenpreparingtheedition.
Much has beenwritten aboutmedieval Castilian prose from a historical linguistics
point of view by scholars such as Jozsef Herman,207Paul Lloyd,208Ralph Penny,209
RafaelLapesa,210andRogerWright.211Becauseofthiswealthofinformationaboutthe
linguisticsoftheperiod,itisthesociolinguisticcontextoftheAlfonsineoeuvrethatwill
beexploredmorefullyinthefollowingsectionofthischapter.Inordertorecognise
theeffectsofAlfonso’suseoflanguageinhisculturalproject,itisfirstnecessarytogive
abrief,simplifieddescriptionofthesociolinguisticcontextofnon-CatalanIberiainthe
late Middle Ages, so this is where we will start. Understanding the sociolinguistic
contextoftheAlfonsineperiod,includingthecenturiesleadinguptoit,whichhavea
directrelevancetoAlfonso’spromotionofCastilianintheworksofhistaller,iscrucial
to understanding why Alfonsine, and by extension, post-Alfonsine material, is of
interesttoscholarsofhistoricalsociolinguistics.Theimplicationsthishasontheway
inwhichthetextsareediteddigitallywillbeexploredbelow.
207JozsefHerman,Lelatinvulgaire(Paris:PressesUniversitairesdeFrance,1967)208PaulLloyd,FromLatintoSpanish.Vol.1.HistoricalphonologyandmorphologyoftheSpanishlanguage(Philadelphia:AmericanPhilosophicalSociety,1987)209RalphPenny,AHistoryoftheSpanishLanguage(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,1991);Penny’sextensivelistofpublicationsonthistopiccanbeviewedathttp://ilas.sllf.qmul.ac.uk/people/ralph-penny[accessed17/5/2016]210RafaelLapesa,Historiadelalenguaespañola,9thedition(Madrid:EditorialGredos,1981)211RogerWrighthasanextensivelistofpublicationsinthisarea,whichcanbeviewedathttps://www.liverpool.ac.uk/modern-languages-and-cultures/staff/roger-wright/publications/[accessed17/05/2016]
186
2.2.1ThesociolinguisticcontextoflateMedievalIberia
2.2.1.1ThesociolinguisticcontextpriortothereignofAlfonsoX
Inthetwelfthandthirteenthcentury,priortoAlfonso’saccessiontothethrone,the
sociolinguisticsituationinmedievalIberia,212hadalreadystartedtochange.Scholars
suchasPenny213andWright214havelongbeeninagreementthatashiftfromLatinto
theregionally-named,mutually-comprehensibleRomancevarieties(suchasCastilian,
Galician-Portuguese,Aragonese,NavarreseandLeonese)tookplaceoverthecourseof
theMiddle Ages, and scholars such as Herman215and Lloyd216have examined the
specificphoneticandmorphologicalchangeswhichtookplaceaspartofthisprocess.
Wright has argued extensively that rather than a shift fromone variety (Latin) to
another(theRomancevarieties),theshiftthattookplaceoverthecourseofthetwelfth
andthirteenthcenturieswasmoresubtle.217ThisistheSingleLanguage(SL)theory,218
asopposedtotheviewthatLatinandtheRomancevarietieswereseparatelanguages
212TheworkofRogerWrightshowsusthatwhenanalysingthelanguageofmedievalIberiaitiscustomarynottoincludeCataluña,sincethisareawasconsideredpartoftheFrenchratherthantheIberianculturalspherefromtheeighthcenturyandthroughouttheMiddleAges.Inthisthesis,therefore,referencestolanguageinIberiawillmeannon-CatalanIberia.RogerWright,EarlyIbero-Romance:Twenty-onestudiesonlanguageandthetextsfromtheIberianPeninsulabetweentheRomanEmpireandtheThirteenthCentury(Delaware:JuandelaCuesta,1994)p.163213Penny,AHistoryoftheSpanishLanguage214Wright,EarlyIbero-Romance215Herman,Lelatinvulgaire216Lloyd,FromLatintoSpanish.217Wright,EarlyIbero-Romance,p.1218CarmenPensado,‘HowwasLeoneseVulgarLatinread?’,RogerWright,(Ed.)LatinandtheRomanceLanguagesintheEarlyMiddleAges(Paperbackedition)(Pennsylvania:PennsylvaniaStateUniversityPress,1996)pp.190-204,p.190
187
is the Two Language (2L) theory.219Wright argues that late medieval Iberia is an
exampleof‘complexmonolingualism’wherethevariousLatinatevarietiesinspoken
useatthetimewereallpartofasingle,highlycomplexlanguage.220Heexplainsthatin
hisview,thelanguagespokeninmedievalIberiawasagroupoffragmentedvarieties
thathadevolvednaturallyfromClassicalLatin:linguisticvariationwasnolonger‘held
in check by the norm,’ but rather was ‘constrained only by the practicalities of
communication’,andthat thesespokenvarietiesallexistedwithinonemonolingual
continuum.221Thewrittenformofthelanguage,however,didnotreflectthesoundof
thespokenform;rather,theorthographyusedinmedievalIberiawas‘semi-phonetic’
andarchaic,where,asarguedbyWright,scribeslearnttraditionalspellingsforeach
wordinitsentirety,withoutmakingthedirectphoneme-graphemelinksweseeinuse
inmodernCastilian.222Lloydexplainsthesamepointsuccinctly,bystatingthat‘people
spokeinonewayandwroteinanotherway,onethatlookedmorearchaic,butasfar
astheywereconcerneditwasallonelanguage’.223
Wright argues that therewas a conceptual realignment from the idea that spoken
languageandwrittenlanguagewereregistersofthesamelinguisticvariety(Latin),224
tothenotionthatLatinandthespokenIberianvarietieswereseparatelanguagesin
theirownright.HecontendsthatthisshiftwasstartedbythestandardisationofLatin
pronunciationof theCarolingianReform,providingapan-EuropeanstandardLatin
219Pensado,p.190220Wright,EarlyIbero-Romance,p.1221AlbertoVarvaro,‘LatinandRomance:FragmentationofRestructuring?’,inWright,LatinandtheRomanceLanguages,p.49222Wright,ElTratadodeCabreros,pp.10-11223Lloyd,p.174224Wright,ElTratadodeCabreros,pp.10-11
188
pronunciation, based on Classical Latin and with a direct phoneme-grapheme
correspondence225thathad long since fallenaway in theRomancevarieties.226This
sparkedthenotionthattheRomancevarietiesspokenbythelateMiddleAgeswereby
thisstagenolongersimplyregistersofLatinbutweredistinctvarieties,separatefrom
Latin,sincetheywerepronouncedsodifferentlyfromthereformedpronunciationof
Latin.227HegoesontoarguethatthisconceptualrealignmentlaterledtoaRomance
orthographicreformtoprovideaspellingsystemwhichbetterrepresentedthevariety
usedinthevariousregionsofnon-CatalanIberia,andensuredthatwrittenlanguage,
when read aloud,was comprehensible to themasses in that region, given that the
pronunciation reform had made Latin read aloud no longer comprehensible to
untrained speakers.228AsWright points out, it is important to remember that the
conceptual distinction between Latin and Romance which led to the orthographic
reform was neither inevitable nor evolutionary, but rather was ‘the result of an
innovationmadeonpurposeinaparticularhistoricalcontext.’229Iwillreturntothis
pointlater,withspecificreferencetoAlfonso.
The2LtheoryfavouredbyThomasWalsh230andMartinHarris231–whichhasarather
unsatisfactoryandoversimplifiedname, grouping together inone camp the several
varietiesof IberianRomanceas if theywereonehomogenous language, separating
225Wright,ElTratadodeCabreros,p.11226AntónioEmiliano,‘LatinorRomance?GraphemicVariationandScripto-LinguisticChangeinMedievalSpain’inWright,LatinandtheRomanceLanguages,p.235227Wright,ElTratadodeCabreros,p.11228Wright,ElTratadodeCabreros,p.11229Wright,R.EarlyIbero-Romance,p.22230ThomasWalsh,‘SpellingLapsesinEarlyMedievalLatinDocumentsandtheReconstructionofPrimitiveRomancePhonology’,inWright,LatinandtheRomanceLanguages,pp.205-218231MartinHarris,‘TheRomanceLanguages’,MartinHarrisandNigelVincent,(eds.)TheRomanceLanguages(London:CroomHelm,1988)pp.1-25
189
them from Latin in the other camp, raises questions of when, within a dialectal
continuum,onemutually-intelligiblevarietybecomesanother.Theanswertothisis
usuallymorepolitically-thanlinguistically-based.2Lisbasedonthemoretraditional
notion of Latin and the Romance varieties being separate languages, rather than
registersof thesame language.Harrisrefers to thespoken languageofnon-Catalan
ChristianIberiaasearlyastheninthcenturyas‘arangeofHispano-Romancedialects’
(andnotvarietiesofLatin).2322Lisbasedonthesuppositionthatspeakersinthemid
tolatemedievalIberiamadeaconsciousconceptualdistinctionbetweenLatinandthe
Romance varieties prior to the Carolingian Reform, following natural linguistic
evolutionfromClassicalLatintothecontinuumofRomancevarieties,ofwhichwesee
evidencebythemid-medievalperiod.Wrightarguesthatsuchconceptualdistinction
withouttheexternalinterventionoftheCarolingianReform,isunlikely233andMarcel
Danesi writes that ‘there exists no documentary evidence to suggest that anyone
writingintheLateMiddleAges[…]wasawareoftheconceptualdistinctionbetween
Latin and Romance’. 234 Furthermore, Herman contends that as early as the fifth
century, speakers, particularly educated speakers, would have been aware of the
existenceofprestigevarietiesoftheirlanguage,primarilytiedtowrittenforms,and
popularspokenvarieties,andthe‘everdeepeninggap’betweenthetwo.235Thisseems
anaturalassumption,andcanbeviewedtodayinsituationssuchastheplayofchildren
who are able to recognise and caricature the speech of prestige registers, yet the
232Harris,p.6233RogerWright,‘TheConceptualDifferenceBetweenLatinandRomance:InventionorEvolution?’inWright,LatinandtheRomanceLanguages,p.104234MarcelDanesi,‘Latinvs.RomanceintheMiddleAges:Dante’sDevulgarieloquentiarevisited’inWright,LatinandtheRomanceLanguages,p.249235JózsefHerman,‘SpokenandWrittenLatinintheLastCenturiesoftheRomanEmpire.AContributiontotheLinguisticHistoryoftheWesternProvinces’,inWright,LatinandtheRomanceLanguages,p.41
190
childrendonotperceivethetworegisters(prestigeandnon-prestige)asbeingtwo
separatelanguages,aswouldbethecasefollowingthe2Ltheory.This,andWright’s
convincingargumentsforSL,leadmetobelievethatthefoundationuponwhich2Lis
based – the existence, prior to the Carolingian reform, of individuals or centres of
culturethatweresometalinguisticallyawaretheywereabletodistinguishbetween
written Latin and the spoken Romance varieties – does not hold water in the
sociolinguisticcontextofpre-CarolingianIberia.The implicationof this is therefore
thatfollowingtheSLtheory,priortotheCarolingianreformitisunlikelythatspeakers
inIberiawouldhaveconsideredtheirlanguagetobeconceptuallydistinctfromLatin,
butwouldinsteadbeawareofprestige(chieflywritten)andeverydayregisters.
Despite the difference between what we consider to be Latin, and the vernacular
varieties spoken in late medieval Iberia, the majority of speakers of the time of
Alfonso’saccessiontothethrone,centuriesafter theCarolingianreform,stillcalled
their language, or varieties, ‘lingua latina’.236 Not having widely implemented any
changes in language names means that speakers of the time must have had no
requirementtomakeconceptualdistinctionsbetweenthevarietiesspokenthroughout
non-Catalan Iberia by this point in time, nor between the spoken varieties and the
written variety, which as explained above, was closer to earlier forms of Latin.237
Furthermore,asLloydhaspointedout,238despitesomeearlyexperimentationsuchas
the Tratado de Cabreros, 239 by the mid-thirteenth century, for the most part,
236Wright,EarlyIbero-Romance,p.1237Lloyd,p.171238Lloyd,p.171239Wright,ElTratadodeCabreros
191
orthographicnormsinplaceinmedievalIberiahadnotyetbeenadjustedtoreflectthe
conceptualseparationfromLatinorthepronunciationofthevernaculartongues.That
istosaythatinsteadofmakingaconceptualdistinctionbetweentwolanguages:Latin
(written) and their particular variety of Romance (spoken), it is more likely that
speakersstillmadeadistinctionbetweenspokenandwrittenlanguageandconsidered
themasregistersofthesamelanguage,whichtheycalled‘lingualatina’.240
AntónioEmilianohasshown thatagradualprocessof ‘delatinization’ tookplace in
non-Catalan Iberia during the thirteenth century, 241 but the path towards
Romanization of orthography was not smooth. In El Tratado de Cabreros, Wright
describeshowweseevariousexperimentsofRomance,orreformedorthography,in
thefirstdecadesofthethirteenthcentury,suchasthe1206treatyitself,whichaswe
sawearlier, exists in twowitnesses:one inLeoneseandone inCastilian.However,
havingexperimentedwiththeuseofCastilian,orreformedorthography,intheearly
yearsofthethirteenthcentury,thereisadrasticdeclineinitsusageuntilatleastthe
1240s.Wrightexplainsthatforaspellingreformtohaveanyreallong-termsuccessit
mustbeconsideredofficial,andforthat,beacceptedbythekingandchancellery.242
Throughoutmuchof the firsthalfof thethirteenthcentury, thechancellerydidnot
makeofficialuseofthereformedorthography,nordoweseemuchevidenceofofficial
experimentationswith thisdeveloping spelling system.One important figureof the
240Wright,EarlyIbero-Romance,p.1241Emiliano,p.235242Wright,ElTratadodeCabreros,p.113
192
timewasRodrigoJiménezdeRada,243whobecameArchbishopofToledoin1209.He
was a ‘leading ecclesiastical figure in Spain (and abroad)’, a chief organizer of the
military efforts, a ‘prolific author’244and ‘one of themost significant figures of his
day’.245Hiselectionasarchbishoptookplacearoundthetimeofaninternationalpro-
traditionalistmovementandwhenwritinghismostnotablework,DerebusHispaniae,
completedintheearly1240s,RodrigowroteinLatin,oratleastusinganunreformed
orthographic system. It is also noteworthy here that in the Estoria, references to
informationtakenfromDerebusasasourcefrequentlyappearalongsidethephrase
‘ensu/solatin’.AsWrightpointsout,elToledanowasopposedtotheorthographic
reformshehadseenbeingexperimented,andfelttheywereunnecessary.Wrightgoes
ontolistpotentialconsciousorunconsciousreasonsforthisopposition,includingthe
keypointthatLatin(oramoretraditionalorthography)wascomprehensibleacross
Europe, thereforewidening his potential readership.246It is alsoworth bearing in
mind that Jiménez de Rada, a high-rankingmember of the clergy, waswriting his
historyatthebehestofFernandoIIIasanideologytounitetheeightkingdomsnowin
his power through inheritance and reconquest of al-Andalus.247 As Latin was the
languageoftheChurch,elToledano’soppositiontoorthographicreformwouldmost
243MatthiasMaser,‘RodrigoJiménezdeRada.Christian-MuslimRelations:ABibliographicalHistory’,DavidThomas,(Ed.)BrillOnlineReference2013.http://brillonline.nl/entries/Christian-muslim-relations/Rodrigo-jimenez-de-rada-COM_24223,[accessed20/12/2013]244AlexNovikoff,‘FromDialoguetoDisputationintheageofArchbishopJiménezdeRada’,JournalofMedievalIberianStudies,4:1(2012)95-100,http://www.tandfonline.com.ezproxye.bham.ac.uk/doi/full/10.1080/17546559.2012.677194#tabModule,[accessed20/12/2013]245AengusWard,‘SumarioanalísticodelaHistoriaGothica:EditionandStudy’,PapersoftheMedievalHispanicResearchSeminar57(London:DepartmentofHispanicStudies,UniversityofLondon,2007)p.1246Wright,ElTratadodeCabreros,pp.107-108247DerekLomax,‘RodrigoJiménezdeRadacomohistoriador’,AIHActasV.(1974),http://cvc.cervantes.es/literatura/aih/pdf/05/aih_05_2_017.pdf[accessed20/12/2013]
193
likelyhavebeenlinkedtohisreligiousandideologicalbeliefs,andawishtopromote
Christian culture through the continued use of unreformed orthography. Martin
contendsthat inadditiontounitingthenewly-expandedterritory, JiménezdeRada
was also writing to reinforce royal authority. 248 Presumably, in addition to his
ideologicalbeliefs,hechosetowritehishistoryintraditionalorthographyforpractical
reasons, in order to make the work pan-Iberian and therefore the unifying force
Fernandowantedittobe,yetweknowfromworkspublishedbysociolinguistssuchas
Wrightthatbythe1240sitwasnecessaryfortextssuchastheFuerostobewrittenin
reformedorthographyinorderthattheycouldbeunderstoodbyanewgenerationof
speakers,astheCarolingianphoneticpronunciationofLatinorthographyhadbythis
point taken hold in non-Catalan Iberia.249Althoughmost people of the time were
illiterate,followersoftheSLtheorybelievetheywouldhaveunderstood‘Latin’written
textswhen read aloud.250However, if they could no longer understand these texts
whenreadoutwiththenewpronunciation,onemaywonderthen,whoistheintended
audienceofsuchahistoryinLatin,oratleastinatraditionalorthographicsystem.
2.2.1.2TheAlfonsinetaller,Alfonsinesociolinguistics,andthedigitaleditor
Bytheendof thethirteenthcentury, themajorityofnon-ecclesiastical Iberiantexts
werewritteninthereformedorthographicalsystemsrelatingtotheregionally-named
248Martin,LesjugesdeCastille,p.251249Wright,ElTratadodeCabreros,p.116250RobertBlake,‘SyntacticaspectsofLatinatetextsoftheEarlyMiddleAges’,inWright,LatinandtheRomanceLanguages,pp.219-228
194
varieties.251AlfonsowasakeypromoterofCastilianasaprestigevariety,worthyof
textsproducedwithinhisowntallerforalmostallgenres(AlfonsowrotetheCantigas
inthemoreliteraryGalician),andconceptuallydistinctfromLatinandfromtheother
Romancetongues.ItwasthepromotionofaprestigevarietyofCastilianthatwasas
importanttoAlfonsoaswhatMartintermsthe‘redistribution’ofknowledgethrough
hisoeuvre,252andthemonarch’spromotionofthelanguageincreasedthroughoutthe
courseofhisreignashisimperialaspirationsgrew.Beingamonarchofakingdomwith
itsownprestigiouslinguisticvariety,distinctfromthoseintheneighbouringkingdoms
and fromLatin,was an important part of Alfonso’s project to becomeHolyRoman
Emperor,253ascanbeseenintheshortconcordancestudybelow.
AsWright argues, the conceptual distinction between Latin and Romance and the
orthographicreformwas‘theresultofaninnovationmadeonpurposeinaparticular
historicalcontext.’254Alfonsowasnotthefirsttousethisreformedorthography,but
hewasavigoroussupporterofit,andincreasinglysothroughouthisreign,asIwill
showlaterinthischapter.TheproductionbyAlfonsoandhistallerofalargebodyof
proseinCastilian,aconsciouspromotionofthereformedCastilianorthographyand
thereforetheconceptthatCastilianwasdistinctfromothervarietiesandfromLatin,
wasakey factor in theshift in thesociolinguisticcontextof late thirteenth-century
Castile.255
251Wright,EarlyIbero-Romance,p.41252Martin,LesjugesdeCastille,p.326253O’Callaghan,TheLearnedKing,p.140254Wright,R.EarlyIbero-Romance,p.22255RogerWright,‘Thepre-historyofwrittenSpanishandthethirteenth-centurynationalistzeitgeist',inJosédelValle(ed.),APoliticalHistoryofSpanish:TheMakingofaLanguage,(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,2013)pp.31-43,p.43
195
TheAlfonsinetexts,andinparticulartheEstoriadeEspanna,becauseofthenumberof
extantmanuscripts,andthewayitwasrewrittenaccordingtothechangingpolitical
context, hold a great deal of information about the evolution of the orthographic
reform,andscholarsareabletolearnagreatdealaboutthenatureandevolutionof
the reform from its early experimentation by analysing the spellings in the
manuscripts.Totakeasimpleexample,scholarsmaychoosetostudythespellingof
‘mugier’/’muger’tolearnatwhichstagespellingswerechanging.Oneoftheeasiest
ways to do this would be to use concordances of transcribed manuscripts.
Concordances are not, of course, exclusive to the digital age, but aremore readily
availablewithdigitaleditions,thankstocomputerisedmethodsoftheirproduction.To
date it is not yet possible to studyorthographic change of theAlfonsine textusing
concordances,sincebytheirnature,editorsofprinteditionshavetoeithernormalise
spellingtosomeextenttoensuretheeditionisusableandlistsofspellingvariantsdo
not become noise, or they have to provide documentary editions of just one
manuscript,Lachmannianeditionswhichprivilegeolderspellings,Bédierist,orbest-
texteditionsofaverysmallnumberofmanuscripts(orevenjustonemanuscript),or
reader’seditionsofregularisedspellings.Asynopticeditioncould,intheory,showthe
textatvariousstagesofdevelopment,buttheusefulnessofaprintsynopticeditionfor
scholarsoforthographicreformiscappedbythenecessitytoavoidtoomuchtextual
noiseintheformofvariantspellingsandexcessiveeditorialcodes.Furthermore,the
current available electronic concordances of the Hispanic Seminary of Medieval
Studies (HSMS)256are unable to show spelling variation in progress since they are
256FranciscoGagoJover(ed.).“Lapidario”,“EstoriadeEspañaI”,“EstoriadeEspañaII”and“GeneralestoriaI”,ProseWorksofAlfonsoXelSabio.DigitalLibraryofOldSpanishTexts.HispanicSeminaryof
196
comprisedofexpandedforms.Tousethesameexample,thismeansitisnotpossible
tousetheHSMSconcordancestostudytheshiftfrom‘mugier’to‘muger’,sincethey
haveexpandedallabbreviatedformsto‘mugier’,evenwhenonthesamefoliotheword
appearsunabbreviatedas‘muger’.Thismakesconcordancesearchesofwordswhich
maybeabbreviatedunreliablewhentheyarebeingusedtostudyspellingchange.257
Similarly,theEstoriaDigitaldoesnotcontainaconcordancesearchtoolatthepresent
time. Itwouldbeentirelypossible foradigitaleditor tocreateaconcordance from
unabbreviatedformsofspellingsonly,andtonotcountexpandedabbreviations,ifthe
editorconsideredthattheeffortrequiredtomakesuchatoolwaswarrantedbythe
fact that theoutcomewouldbeofsufficientacademic interest toscholarswhomay
wishtostudyspellingchangeinthisway–butonlyifhewasawareofthepotential
use of his edition by scholars to do so. This would only come from an in-depth
understandingofthetextsbeingedited,andtheirsignificancetoscholarshipofmore
specialitiesthanjustthatoftheeditorhimself.
Themuger/mugierpointalsohighlightswhy,aseditors,wemustbeawareofhowwe
expandabbreviated forms, andwhat the implicationsofdoingso canmean for the
usefulnessofoureditionby futurescholars:regularisationcanprovideconsistency
andreducenoiseforthegeneraluser,butcanalsoremovesomeoftheusefulnessof
theeditionforscholarsoforthography.Thisisoneofthewaysinwhichdigitaleditions
canbeparticularlyuseful,whereprintededitionscannot:adigitaleditorcouldchoose
MedievalStudies,2011,http://www.hispanicseminary.org/t&c/ac/index-en.htm[accessed26/02/2014]257PollyDuxfield,ChristianKusi-Obodum,MarinePoirer,‘VariabilidadlingüísticaycuestionesdeetiquetaciónXMLenlaedicióndigitaldelaEstoriadeEspanna’,1stAnnualColloquiumoftheEstoriadeEspannaDigitalProject(UniversityofBirmingham,10-11April2014).
197
nottoregulariseacrossawholeeditionmadefrommanuscriptswhichcontainvariant
spellings, but when transcribing could regularise to each individual manuscript,
decidingonanexpandedformaccordingtotheusageineachparticularmanuscript.
She could also present a regularised general-reader’s edition where spelling is
regularisedthroughout.Theaudiencesofthesetwovariationsoftheeditionwouldbe
different,andadigitaleditorisabletocaterfortheneedsofbothoftheseaudiences
withinoneedition,thankstodigitaltools,withoutcompromisingtheother.Thisisthe
route thatwas taken in the Estoria Digital, and themodel that I have followed in
preparingthedigitalCPSF.Thereisalsotheoptiontoprovideanevengreaterlevelof
taggeddetailthaneitherofthesetwoprojectshavedone,iftheeditorperceivedthe
increasedtimeinvestedtodosowouldbringwithitsufficientbenefitsfortheusersof
theedition.IwillreturntothispointinChapterThree.
2.2.1.3Alfonso’spromotionofCastilian:aconcordancestudyofselectedtextsin
hisoeuvre
To illustrate the sociolinguistic contextofworks of theAlfonsine project, Alfonso’s
promotionofCastilian,andasanexampleofthesortsofthingsscholarsmaylookfor
in digital editions of medieval prose in Castilian, I have carried out a simple
concordance study.258This studyuses theonline concordancesof theHSMS,259and
canalsobetakenasanexampleofoneofthemanywaysinwhichscholarscanuse
258Ipresentedapreviousandlongerversionofthissociolinguisticstudy:PollyDuxfield,“Alfonso,theEstoriadeEspannaandthelanguageofempire”,1stAnnualColloquiumoftheEstoriadeEspannaDigitalProject(UniversityofBirmingham,10-11April2014).259GagoJover
198
modern tools (in this case, electronic concordances) to study texts to reveal the
sociolinguisticpoliticscontainedwithinthem,thatmaynotbeobviouslyevidentwhen
simply reading the texts. I will analyse data from four key search terms: latin,
castellano,espannolandromanz,260andwilllookatdatafromthetextofthreetexts
fromtheAlfonsinetaller,writtenduringhislifetime:theLapidario(Escorialh.I.5)an
Alfonsinebookonmagicandmedicine,whichwas translated fromArabicbetween
1243and1250,261theGeneralEstoriaI(NacionalMSS/816,datedbytheHSMS1272-
1275),andthetextoftheVersiónprimitiva,oftheEstoriadeEspanna.Thisisdatedby
Fernández-Ordóñezto1270-74,andcomprisesthecodexE1(EscorialmanuscriptY-I-
2)andthefirstseventeenfoliosofE2(EscorialX-i-4).262
IntheLapidario,thefirstbookoftheAlfonsinetaller,263thetermcastellanoappears
onlythreetimes,allonfolio1v.Twooftheoccurrencesarealmostidentical(oneis
partofarubricandanotheristhesametextasintherubric,butaspartofthemain
text).OneoftheoccurrencesstatesthatthetranslationintoCastilianhastakenplace
‘porquelosomnesloentendiessenmeior’.264Thetermespannoldoesnotappear in
this manuscript. Latin occurs in the Lapidario 44 times, 28 of which refer to
translations from Arabic, not into Castilian but into Latin. Given that Alfonso has
explicitlystatedthatheistranslatingthesourcetextsoftheLapidariointoCastilianin
260Asearchsuchasthisispossiblewiththeseconcordances,sincethesesearchtermsarenotusuallyabbreviated,andspellingvariationisnotbeingstudiedhere.261JoséChabásandBernardR.Goldstein,TheAlfonsineTablesofToledo,(Dordrecht,Boston,London:KluwerAcademicPublishers,2003)p.95262InésFernández-Ordóñez,‘Eltallerhistoriográficoalfonsí’263Edilán,LapidariodeAlfonsoXelSabiohttp://www.edilan.es/hojas/0004.htm[accessed08/06/2016]264QuotationtakenfromtheHSMStranscriptionoftheLapidariofolio1v(abbreviationsexpandedasitalics)asthetranscribedtextappearsonhttp://www.hispanicseminary.org/t&c/ac/index-en.htm[accessed24/02/2014]
199
orderthathisreadersshouldunderstand itbetter, it jarssomewhatthatheshould
choosetotranslatesomanytermsintoLatinratherthanCastilian.MarcelladeMarco
explainsthatAlfonsowastranslatingintoCastilianatatimewhenithadnoexisting
technicaltermsfortheconceptscontainedinthesourcetexts,soAlfonsotranslated
such terms into Latin, amore established language. The king then either coined a
Castilianised form of the Latin for each term, or gave the term only in Latin, and
describedtheconcept,enablingthereadertoformanewtermintheirownmind.265In
termsoflanguagepromotionandlinguisticidentity,thiscanbeseenasafailuretofully
promotetheuseofCastilian inawaythatwouldnothavehappenedat thetimeof
writingthehistories.TranslatingintoLatin,ratherthancoiningnewtermsforevery
conceptlackingaCastilianformexposesalackofimportanceplacedonhisreaders
beingabletouseonlyCastiliantodiscussscientifictopics,withoutrelyingonLatinto
provide some of the necessary terminology. In the early 1250s then, the king’s
objective of translating into Castilian ‘so that men could better understand’ was
achievedthroughhischoicetouseCastilianasthemainlanguageofthetext,which
wouldhaveallowedforcomprehensionbyspeakersofthatvariety,andalsoshoweda
strong conceptual separation betweenCastilian and Latin.However, readersof the
LapidarioarestillreliantonLatintogainafullunderstandingofallpartsofthetext,
whichsuggeststhatatthisearlystageinhisculturalproject,Alfonso’suseoflanguage
isformorepracticalpurposes,thatistosayasameansofensuringcomprehension,
thanforapromotionofCastilianculturalpower,asweseeinthehistoricaltextsfrom
laterinhisreign.
265DeMarco,38-39
200
IncontrasttothedatafromtheLapidario,intheVersiónprimitivaoftheEstoria,latin
appears47timesinatextthatissignificantlylongerthantheLapidario:thelattersees
44 occurrences in around 5,600 words, whilst extrapolating from an average
wordcount per folio, the Versión primitiva has some 290,000 words and just 47
occurrencesoftheterm.Ofthese47occurrences,21timesthetermispartofaphrase
usingathirdpersonpluralverbsuchas‘dizenenlatin’,showingpromotionbytheking
ofaculturalseparationbetweenthelanguageoftheauthorandthosewhospokeLatin.
AnalysisofthesetermsintheGeneralEstoriaIgivessimilarresults:castellanoappears
14timesintheGeneralEstoriaI,andineachofthoseoccurrencesreferstolanguage.
In seven of the fourteen occurrences, castellano appears either as part of a phrase
describingitas‘nuestrolenguage’,orusingafirstpersonpluralverbsuchas‘dezimos’.
Thisreinforces theearlier conclusion thatbythe1270s,Alfonso’s courtwas in the
habitofreferringtothelanguagetheyspokeascastellano,andofmakingalinguistic
separation between ‘we’ the speakers of Castilian, and ‘they’ the speakers of Latin,
showingtheconceptoftheCastilian-speakingspeechcommunitybeingseparatefrom
theLatin-speakingspeechcommunity.Onafurtherthreeoccasions,whenneithera
possessiveadjectivenorafirstpersonpluralverbisaccompanyingtheterm,castellano
appearswithinaphrasetranslatingawordintoCastilianfromotherlanguages,usually
LatinorGreek.Ononlyoneoccasiondoescastellanoappearwithathirdpersonplural
formoftheverb(‘dizen’),linkingCastilianto‘they’ratherthan‘we’.Thetermromanz
appearsfivetimesintheGeneralEstoriaI, inwhichtwicetheterms‘deCastiella’or
‘castellano’areaddedasidentifiers.EspannolappearsfourtimesintheAlfonsinefolios
oftheEstoriadeEspanna,andofthese,itonlyreferstolanguageonce,andwithathird
personpluralverb(thereforemeaning‘their’language,not‘ours’)–therestofthetime
201
itdescribespeopleasespannol.EspannolappearsonlyonceintheGeneralEstoriaI,
andrefers toaperson,ratherthanto language. Itcanbeseenthen, that in thevast
majority of occurrences in the Alfonsine history texts from the 1270s, Castilian is
viewedasthelanguageoftheauthor,not‘español’,andthataconceptualseparationis
madebetweentheirCastilianandothers’Latin
Alsorelevant to thehypothesisofCastilianbeingmoreassertivelypromoted inthe
latertextsisthetopicoflanguagenamesusedinthetextsstudied.ToreJansonexplains
theimplicationsoflanguagename-changingbystatingthatlanguagenaming,including
name-changing,ismoreconceptualthanareflectionoftechnicallanguageusageand
linguisticchange.Hegoesontostatethat,priortotheexistenceofa ‘clearnotional
distinction’betweentheRomancevarietiesinmedievalIberiaandLatin,speakershad
noreasontochangethenameoftheirlanguageasitevolvednaturallyfromClassical
Latin.266Followinghislineofargument,itcanbeseenthatdespitetheconsiderable
changeinspokenlanguagefromClassicalLatintothevarietiesinuseinthemidtolate
Middle Ages, since no change in language name had been widely put into place,
speakersmustnothavefelttherequirementtodifferentiatetheirvarietyfromthatof
Latin: that is to say that they still clearly considered their language to be Latin,
supportingWright’sSLtheory.
TheSLtheoryextendstoenableanalysisinthesethreetextsofthetermsromanzand
castellano:TheorthographicsystemAlfonsoXusesintheLapidarioisreferredtoas
266ToreJanson,‘LanguageChangeandMetalinguisticChange:LatintoRomanceandOtherCases’,RogerWright,(Ed.)LatinandtheRomanceLanguagesintheEarlyMiddleAges(Paperbackedition)(Pennsylvania:PennsylvaniaStateUniversityPress,1996)pp.19-28
202
‘romanz’and‘castellano’ondifferentoccasionswithinthetext.Thetwotermsappear
tobeused interchangeably,and ‘romanz’appearsmoreoftenthan ‘castellano’does
(seven times, compared to three). However, by the historical texts of the 1270s
‘romanz’ ismore seldomused to refer to thevariety, andAlfonso favours the term
‘castellano’.Thisissignificantasitshowsaconceptualshiftinthenameofthevariety
beingused:from‘romanz’,whichseparatesthevarietyfromLatin,butnotfromother
varietiesthataredescendantsofLatin(suchasAragonese,Navarrese,Galicianetc.),
andthereforerefersmoretotheideaofareformedorthographythanaculturalnotion
ofthelanguagebeingdistinctfromothervernaculartongues,to‘castellano’,aname
specificallylinkedtoAlfonso’skingdomofCastile,comprisingCastile,LeonandGalicia,
separating it from the varieties spoken in the other Iberian kingdoms. Following
Janson’stheory,thisshiftinlanguage-namefrom‘romanz’to‘castellano’issignificant
notofalinguisticchangebutofaconceptualchange,andthereforethepromotionofa
CastilianculturethroughthepromotionofaCastilianlanguage.Theimplicationthis
hasforthedigitaleditoristhatlinguistsandsociolinguistsarelikelytowanttouse
editionsofAlfonsineandpost-Alfonsinematerialtostudythistypeofphenomenon.
Thismeans that theeditorshouldbemindful thathe is editing in suchaway, and
presentingtheedition(s)ofthetextsinorderthatotherscholarsareabletostudywhat
theywishto–thatistosaythathehasnotremovedtheusefulnessofhiseditionby,
forexample,regularisingspelling.
Furthermore,itissignificantthatalthoughAlfonsowaswritingtheEstoriadeEspanna,
asahistoricaltextofallthosewhoidentifiedthemselvesasformingpartof‘Spain’and
203
ashavinga‘Spanish’lineage,267thelanguageheshouldchoosetodothisinwouldbe
referredtoas‘castellano’andnot‘espannol’.Thisshowsthatthelinguisticvarietyhe
used towrite his textswas significantly different, if only conceptually so, from the
otherIberianvarietiesastowarrantaseparatename.However,theconsciousdecision
towritethispan-peninsularhistoryinCastilianratherthanapan-peninsularlinguistic
variety, suchasLatin, is evidenceof anassertivepromotionofCastilianoverother
varietiesandinparticularoverLatin,andreinforcesCarlosdeAyalaMartínez’sview
thatAlfonso’saim,atleastbetween1257and1275(themajorperiodofhisaspirations
ofbecomingrecognisedasEmperoroftheHolyRomanEmpire),wasnottounifythe
IberianPeninsula,but rather thatCastile shouldhave recognitionasapre-eminent
statusamongsttheIberiankingdoms.268DennisAgerarguesthatalongwithreligion,
language can be a symbol of nationalism, and explains how the notionof a shared
history,evenifthisisamyth,canbea‘fundamentalcomponentofnationalsentiment
andfellow-feeling’.269Itfollows,then,thatAlfonso’sincreasingtheprestigeofCastilian
throughitsuseinhistallerwouldhavehadfurtherknock-oneffects,withtheCastilian
languagebeingasymbolforthenewlyrecognisablyculturallydistinctCastilianspeech
community, and as a means of promoting Castilian culture through his histories.
WrittenatatimewhenAlfonso’sconstantpreoccupationsince1257ofthequestto
become emperor of the Holy Roman Empire was still continuing, 270 before his
267DiegoCatalán,LaEstoriadeEspañadeAlfonsoX:Creaciónyevolución(Madrid:SeminarioMenéndezPidalandUniversidadAutónomadeMadrid,1990)p.30268CarlosdeAyalaMartínez,DirectricesfundamentalesdelapolíticapeninsulardeAlfonsoX:Relacionescastellano-aragonesas1252-1263(Madrid:AntiquaetMedievalia,1986)pp.154-155269DennisAger,MotivationinLanguagePlanningandPolicy(Clevedon:MultilingualMatters,2001)p.14270AntonioBallesteros-Beretta,AlfonsoXelSabio(Barcelona:SalvatEditores,1963)
204
humiliationof1275,271oneofAlfonso’sstrategiesinthisquestwastopromoteCastile
andtheprestigeofitsculture.ThisshowsthathischoicetouseCastilianwasnotpurely
motivatedbypromotionofculture,butratherbypolitics,andinparticularhisimperial
aspirations.
This concordance study isvery short andby nomeansexhaustive, and if timeand
spaceallowedtherewouldbescopeformuchmorein-depthsearching,analysisand
comparisons.Suchastudywouldalmostcertainlyshedfarmorelightonthetopicthan
hasbeenpossibleinsuchafewshortsearchesasthese.Itwouldalsobeinteresting
and informativetocarryouta fullanalysisof languageuseaccordingtothesubject
matterofthetextsbeingstudied.However,shortastheseanalyseshavebeen,itcan
beseenthatCastilianwasmoreassertivelypromotedinthehistoricaltextsfromthe
1270sandonwardsthaninthetranslationsfromearlierinhisreign.Areasonforthis
islikelytobethatbeingdatedtothe1240sandtheearly1250s,thetranslationofthe
LapidariopredatesthemainperiodofAlfonso’simperialaspirationswhichbeganin
1257, and therefore predates Alfonso’s major push of the promotion of Castilian
language,andbyextensionitsculture,aboveallothervarieties.Rather,theLapidario
wastranslatedatatimewhenAlfonso’smainaimforhisintellectualenterprisewas,
inO’Callaghan’swords,‘renderinghomagetoGodandbringingGodandhumanityinto
closercommunication’bymakingasmuchofhumanknowledgeaspossibleaccessible
toasmanypeopleaspossible.272Thisaimnecessitatedtheneedforhisreadershipto
understand what they read, but did not extend to a full politically-motivated
271AengusWard,HistoryandChroniclesinLateMedievalIberia:RepresentationsofWambainLateMedievalNarrativeHistories(LeidenandBoston:Brill,2011)p.37272O’Callaghan,TheLearnedKing,p.131
205
promotionofCastilian.Incontrast,thelevelofstatusplanningthatcanbeseeninthe
firstrecensionsofhishistoricaltexts,wherecomprehensionofthetextdoesnotrely
onLatin,andwheretranslationintoCastilianwastheendresultratherthanastepping
stonebetweenthesourcelanguageandLatin,wouldhaveinvolvedacertainlevelof
corpusplanningthroughthecoiningofnewCastilianterms.Bythe1270sAlfonsowas
doingthisinordertohelptoraisethestatusandprestigeofCastilianbyensuringhis
readerscoulddiscusstheconceptsintheLapidariowithoutrelyingonLatin,thereby
allowing him to consciously raise the profile of Castilian amongst other Iberian
varietiesandalsoLatin,andasaresulthisownimperialclaims.Again,thisreinforces
theviewofdeAyalaMartínez,thatAlfonso’sprimaryaimduringthislaterperiodwas,
ratherthantounifythepeninsula,forCastiletobeeminentwithinIberia–andasthe
rulerofCastile,Alfonsowouldbeanevenmorecrediblecandidateforemperor.273
Itisnoteworthythatwedonotseeevidenceofthistypeoflanguage-promotioninthe
CPSF: by searching the XML file ofmy critical edition, it is evident that ‘castellano’
appears fourtimes– threeasanepithet for thenoblemanAlvarPérezdeCastroel
Castellano, and once to describe Fernando III as Castilian. ‘Latin’, ‘romanz’ and
‘español’(andorthographicvariantsthereof)donotappearintheCPSF.Thisfurther
supportsthehypothesisthattheirusageinthelatertextsofhisoeuvredemonstrates
Alfonsinelanguage-promotion.Whilst,duetotheconstraintsoftimeandfinances,Ido
notprovideelectronicconcordances,IhaveuploadedmyXMLtranscriptions,which
users could download and use to carry out electronic searches to study such
273CarlosdeAyalaMartínez,pp.154-155
206
phenomena.BecauseIhadaccesstothetranscriptions,aswillusersofmyedition,I
wasabletosearchfortermsnolesseasilythanIcouldusingtheHSMSconcordances.
Ashasbeenseenabove,concordancescanlimitsearchpossibilitiesincaseswherethey
arebasedonexpansions.Thisisnotthecasewhensearchinginthetranscription,as
userscansearch forwhatevertheychoose,usingthesearch facilityonXMLediting
programmes such asTextWrangler. The case for providing concordances in digital
editions when one provides transcriptions for user-download, is therefore more
questionable.
2.2.1.4 Alfonso and sociolinguistics: linguistic conceptual separation,
orthographicreform,language-namingandlanguagepromotion
AsshownbyWright’sSLtheoryasoutlinedabove,thefactthatAlfonsowritesthathe
isusing ‘Castilian’doesnotnecessarilymeanhe isusingavariety that isdifferent,
whenspoken,tothatusedbyspeakerswhowouldhavedescribedthemselvesasLatin
speakers, but rather that he is using the Castilianised orthography, and overtly
assertingaculturalseparationfromspeakersofothervarieties,asameansoflanguage
promotionofCastilian. It is theactive choice touse the reformedCastilian spelling
system,andtheuseoftheterm‘Castilian’todescribethevarietyheisusing,notthe
linguisticdifferencesbetweenLatinandCastilian,whicharesignificant.Hischoiceof
languagedemonstratesthattheconceptualseparationbetweenLatinandCastilianas
twodistinctvarietieshastakenplacebythetimeAlfonsoiswritingthefirstrecensions
ofhishistoricaltexts.
207
Furthermore,throughhisusageofthemedievalCastilianspellingsystemandthename
‘Castilian’,AlfonsoisconsciouslydemonstratinghisviewthatCastilianisavarietyin
itsownright,andisgivingCastilianprestigeasalanguageofhigherlearning,inafield
thatwouldpreviouslyhavebeenreservedforunreformedorthography,andtherefore
‘Latin’.274Inthisway,Alfonso’suseofmedievalCastilianinhisoeuvrecanbeseenas
an example of language status planning, which ‘modifies the status, and hence the
prestige,of languageor languagesvarietieswithin society’.275His linguistic choices
promote Castilian as a language of learning, and therefore strengthen the prestige
attached to the emerging Castilian speech communitywho have available to them
literatureandacademicwritingfromaroyalhouseholdintheirownvariety.Indoing
so, Alfonso is challenging the diglossic state which could have emerged from the
conceptualseparationbetweenLatinandCastilian,whereLatinand itsunreformed
orthographycouldhavebeenthelanguageofhigherprestige.PromotingCastilianin
thiswaywasameansofgivingCastilianalevelofprestigetorivalthatofLatin,innon-
ecclesiasticalcircumstances.
IntheEstoriadeEspanna,ValdeónpointsoutthatAlfonso’suseofEspañainthiswork
wassignificant,andreferredtoalloftheformerterritoryoftheVisigoths,notjusthis
ownkingdom;276heused‘españoles’torefertothosefromAragon,Portugal,Galicia,
AsturiasaswellasCastile-Leon.277Alfonsowasnot theonly Iberianmonarchof the
274O’Callaghan,TheLearnedKing,p.140275Ager,p.6276ValdeónBaruque,p.135277ValdeónBaruque,p.137
208
timetousetheterminhischronicles,however,asweseeitusedalsointhechronicle
attributed to James I of Aragon, again referring to all of the kingdoms within the
peninsula. 278 Nevertheless, Alfonso consciously chose to write in Castilian
orthography, thus promoting the culture and language of his own territorywhilst
writingaboutawidergeographicalregionthanthatwithintheboundariesofhisown
kingdom.
As well as the ideological statement made by Alfonso’s increasingly assertive
promotion of Castilian to the expense of Latin, and of Castilian being culturally
separate fromotherRomancevarieties, it ispossible to statemoreobjectively that
Alfonso’s use of language is likely to have been greatly influenced by his intended
readership.KeytounderstandingtherelationshipbetweenAlfonso’slanguage-usage
andhisdesiredreadershipisthelanguageusedinhislegalcodes.Iwroteabovehow,
as a self-styled ‘absolutist’279monarch, Alfonso reformedmuch of the legal system
withinhiskingdomandwasaprolificcreatorof laws.Althoughsomeof these legal
codeswerenotactuallypromulgateduntilafterAlfonso’sdeath,atthetimeofwriting
the codes would have been designed to be implemented, and therefore had to be
understoodbythemajorityofthepopulation.AsWrightexplains,lawswhichcannot
easilybeunderstoodbythepubliccannoteasilybeadheredto,solinguistsareableto
analyse the linguistic systems in which they are written to gain insight into the
linguisticcontextinwhichtheywereproduced.280Alfonso’slegalcodesarewrittenin
Castilian, not Latin, or in other terms, in reformed rather than unreformed
278ValdeónBaruque,pp.137-139279SalvadorMartínez,AlfonsoX,theLearned,p.297280Wright,ElTratadodeCabreros,p.116
209
orthography, which shows that by the time of his reign such orthography was
necessaryforthemtobeunderstoodbythewiderpublic.Alfonsowasnotthefirstto
produce legal texts in Castilian, or reformed orthography:Wright states that from
around the 1240s theFueros are translated into Castilian in order to cater for the
comprehensionneedsof thewiderpublic.281Following thisreasoning,wecan infer
thatAlfonso’sintendedaudiencewasCastilian-speaking,andawideraudiencewithin
Castile than just those who had been trained to understand the unreformed
orthography,orthepan-EuropeanstyleofLatin.Alfonso’sprosetextsweredesigned
tobereadwidelywithinCastile,orfailingthis,readaloudtotheilliterate,andcrucially,
understood.
Thiscontrastswiththefactthat,liketheFueros,DerebusHispaniaewaswritteninthe
1240s.De rebus, however,was in Latin: Rodrigo’s intended audiencewas different
fromthatoftheFueros,andoftheAlfonsinetexts.Latinmayhavebeenamoreobvious
choice for Alfonso’s histories if his intention was to gain as wide an audience as
possible not just within Castile, since educated readers in Castile would have
understoodbothCastilianandLatin,andLatinreadersoutsideofCastilewouldalso
have been able to understand the text. Therefore, through analysis ofhis language
choice,itcanbeseenthatAlfonso’sintentioninhishistoricaltextswasnotsimplyto
promoteCastilianhistoryandculture,buttopromoteitslanguage,toraisetheprofile
andprestigeof thevariety, andby extensionofhiskingdomandhisownstatusas
monarchofthatprestigiouskingdom,andallofthiswithinhisownkingdom.
281Wright,ElTratadodeCabreros,p.116
210
2.2.2SectionconclusionAsalargebodyofwork,thetextsoftheAlfonsinetaller,therefore,areimportantfor
the study of the sociolinguistic context of thirteenth-century Castile and the
development of Castilian orthography. They are also historically and culturally
significant,astheyallowscholarsaninsightintothepoliticsoftheera,particularlythe
AlfonsinequestforpowerwithinChristendomandofhispromotionoftheimportance
ofCastilianlanguageandculturewithinIberia.Wecanalsousethetextstostudythe
ethnicmake-upoftheintellectualclassofthetimebystudyingthetranslations,and
can gather information on the perceived importance Alfonso placed upon various
topicsbyanalysingwhathechosetohavetranslatedfromArabic.Thelegaltextscan
allowscholarstostudypeople’sbehaviouroftheperiod,andthevaluesoftheruling
class,andinparticularoftheking,regardingthisbehaviour,sincealthoughseveralof
theAlfonsinelawcodeswerenotpromulgateduntilafterhisdeath,itisnotusually
deemednecessarytolegislateagainstbehaviourswhicharenotbeingcarriedout.By
extension,thepost-Alfonsinetextshaveanappealforscholarstowardsmanyofthese
samegoals,ifonlytoprovideapointofcontrast,whichcanshedevenmorelighton
the cultural, political, linguistic and sociolinguistic phenomenawithin an Alfonsine
context.
Manyoftheseareashavebeen,andcancontinuetobe,researchedusingtheextant
manuscripts of the Alfonsine oeuvre, and some can be researched using the print
editions of the texts which already exist. However, the most appropriate way to
continuestudyingthetextsoftheAlfonsinetallerisnowtomakeuseofdigitaleditions.
211
Like their print counterparts, these are far from free of editorial judgment –
transcribersandeditorsconstantlymakedecisions:whattotranscribe,whattoignore,
what abbreviation mark represents what expansion, what they perceive to be the
original and modified reading in the case of emendations, whether a variant is
significantornot,andsoon.Digitaleditions,however,areable tocontain farmore
information about these editorial decisions than print editions are, without such
information becoming noise andmaking the edition less usable. Furthermore, it is
often possible for the user of the digital edition to be more in control of the
presentational aspects of the edition, and therefore to some extent the editorial
decisionsondisplay,thanauserofaprintedition,whoisboundbythedecisionsofthe
editor.282Theuserofadigitaleditioncanoftenclickdatapresentationchoiceswhich
allow her to view, and sometimes compare, some or all of the following potential
options,accordingtoherneeds:adiplomatictranscription,aneditedtranscription,a
palaeographic transcription, a version where orthographic abbreviations are
expanded, a regularised version, a collated version, and even high qualitydigitised
imagesofthemanuscript(s),togivejusttheexamplesincludedinthedigitalCPSF.The
ability to access such options frees the user from some of the constraints of print
editions,andallowstheusertostudyareaswhichhavepreviouslybeendifficultor
almostimpossibletostudyusingprinteditionsalone,ormanuscriptswhichmayexist
in repositories in locations that are manymiles apart. The Alfonsine texts are no
exception,andwiththeabove‘muger’/’mugier’example,itwillbefareasiertostudy
aspectssuchasorthographicchange inabbreviatedwordformsusinganelectronic
282Ward,‘EditingtheEstoriadeEspanna’,193
212
editionwith presentationaloptions than hashitherto been possiblewith just print
editionsorelectronictranscriptionsofonemanuscript.
Of particular significance to scholarswithin the Alfonsine oeuvre is the Estoria de
Espanna,givenitsspecifictextualhistory,asIhavediscussedabove.Itisthishistory
whichgivestheEstoriaitsparticularinteresttoscholarsofhistory,medievaltextuality
andlinguistics,aswellastotextualeditors,asonecouldarguethataswellasanauthor
andpatronofmanyworks,Alfonsowasalsotheoriginaleditorofthework.Wesawin
section2.1.4,theoriginalversionofthetextisthe‘Versiónprimitiva’(1270-1274).This
text was edited some time after 1274, and is know as the ‘Versión enmendada de
despuésde1274’,andfinally,whilstlivinginSevilletowardstheendofhisdays,the
king edited the text again, to create the ‘Versión crítica’ (1282-1284).283Ward has
written that the differences between the two main versions of the text dating to
Alfonso’slifetime,thatis,theVersiónprimitivaandtheVersióncrítica,canbeexplained
bythehistoricalandpoliticalcontextinwhicheachrespectiveversionwasproduced:
theearlierwaswrittenfromtheperspectiveofamonarch‘atthepeakofhispowers
andambitions’,whilstthelaterversionwasthatof‘anillanddefeatedking,effectively
de-throned by his son Sancho and abandoned by the majority of his people’, 284
illustratingFraker’spoint that theAlfonsinehistorical textsare,asareallhistorical
texts,aproductoftheexternalcontextinwhichtheywerewritten.285Wewillreturn
toFraker’spointbelow,whenourattentionmovestotheCPSF.
283Fernández-Ordóñez,‘VariaciónenelmodeloalfonsíenelsigloXIII’,p.42284Ward,‘EditingtheEstoriadeEspanna’,188285Fraker,96
213
The relevance of this section for the digital editor of a post-Alfonsine text, of the
sociolinguisticsofAlfonsinesocietyandthepoliticsbehindhislanguagepromotionis
that it shows the significance of the Alfonsine works for scholars from a range of
backgrounds:history,linguistics,sociolinguistics,textualscholarshiptonameafew.
By extension, the same scholars may choose to study these phenomena in post-
Alfonsinetexts,toexploreifandhowsuchphenomenacontinuedorchangedinthe
yearsfollowingAlfonso’sreign.
Ifaneditorisawareoftherichnessoftextsforarangeofscholars,andwhatsomeof
theneedsofthesediverseaudiencesmaybe,ifhistimeandmoneyallowhimtodoso,
itstandstoreasonthatheshouldensurehiseditionisusefulfortheseaudiencestoo.
Totaketheexampleofscholarsofhistoricalsociolinguistics, theeditorshouldtake
carewhenmakingeditorialdecisionsaboutanyregularisationoforthography,ofthe
expansionofabbreviations–expansionshavetheirusesforotheraudiences,butcan
limittheusefulnessofatranscriptionforscholarsof(socio-)linguistics,somodern-day
editorialinterventionwithexpansionsshouldbemadeclear,andscholarsshouldbe
abletoaccesstheeditioninanunexpandedformaswell–andinhowconcordances
shouldbeprepared, inordernot to limit theusefulnessofhisedition foraspecific
audienceofscholars.Thatsaid,practicalityplacesa limitontheextent towhichan
editormaychoosetoretainorthographicvariantsinacollatedorcriticaledition,given
that,asalways,heiswalkingatightropebetweenprovidinguserswithasmuchdetail
aspossibleforvariouspotentialaudiences,andinlimitingthedetailhegivesinorder
not to provide excessive textual noise. However, it is unlikely that a scholar of
sociolinguistics interested in orthographic change would use a collated or critical
214
editiontoviewsuchphenomenon.Incontrast,theywouldbemuchmorelikelytowish
tovieworusedigitaltoolswiththetranscriptionsusedtocreatesucheditions.Itis
withthisinmindthataneditormightchoosetomakethesetranscriptionsavailableto
usersoftheeditionfordownloadasXMLfiles,andtoallowuserstoviewtheedition
asanabbreviatedtranscription,ratherthanpurelyprovidingacollatedand/orcritical
edition.Limitsofspaceontheprintedpageandthecostofprintingsuchtranscriptions
aswellastheedition(s)maypreventaprinteditorfromdoingso,buttheseparticular
limitationsarenotplacedondigitaleditors,allowingthemtocaterfortheneedsofa
wideraudiencewithinoneedition,whichmaycontain several versionsof the text,
presenteddifferentlyfordifferentusers.
Having looked closely at the significance of the Alfonsine oeuvre, its relevance for
scholars,andtheimplicationsthishasonhowonemayedititdigitally,itisspecifically
totheCPSFanditsdigitaleditionthatIwillnowturn.
215
CHAPTERTHREECASESTUDY–ADIGITALEDITIONOFTHECRÓNICAPARTICULARDESANFERNANDO
3.0.1ChapterintroductionInChapterOneIestablishedthebenefitsandconstraintsofdigitalandprintededitions
respectively, as well as describing the approaches of various schools of editing. I
outlinedmyargumentforaneditortohaveaclearunderstandingoftheneedsofher
audienceofusersoftheedition,andthewaysinwhichtheyarelikelytoaccessanduse
theedition,bearinginmindtheexpectationstheywillbringtotheedition,giventhe
editorialculturetowhichtheyareaccustomed.InChapterTwoIusedtheparticular
historical,culturalandlinguisticsignificanceoftheEstoriadeEspannatoexplainwhy
this text is so rich and souseful to scholars frommany different backgrounds –of
course,non-expertreadersmayalsohavemorethanapassinginterestintheseworks
andtheireditions1–andhowthisshouldaffectaneditor’sdecisionswhenpreparing
its digital edition. Whilst doing this I considered how the needs of the edition’s
audienceisaffectedbythenatureofthetextbeingedited,includeditshistory,context
andtextualtransmission,allofwhichitselfaffectswhoislikelytousetheedition,for
whatandhow.
Iwillnowmoveontomycasestudy,lookingatthepracticeofdigitallyeditingmedieval
Castilianprose.Thiswillbeadigitaleditionofaself-containedchronicle,thatisnow
oftenconsideredtobepartoftheEstoriadeEspanna,butwhichwaswrittenlaterthan
1Theissueoftherangeofusersofadigitaleditionisanimportantone,butspaceconstraintsheredonotpermitafulldiscussion.
216
theearliestwitnessesoftheEstoria–theCrónicaparticulardeSanFernando.Based
onthereasoningpresentedabove,inordertoinformmyowneditorialdecisionswhen
preparingthisedition,itisnecessarytohaveaclearoverviewofthiswork,thecontext
of its production, its transmission, and the documents in which it is extant in the
presentday.Beforedescribingthemethodologyofcreatingtheedition,Iwillfirstlook
atthetext,contextandhistoryoftheCrónicaitself.
3.1TheEstoriadeEspannaandtheCrónicaparticulardeSanFernando
Itiswell-established,thankslargelytotheworkofCatalánandFernández-Ordóñez,
thattheEstoriaexistedintwomajorversionsduringthereignofAlfonsoX:the‘Versión
primitiva’ (1270-1274), andthe ‘Versióncrítica’ (1282-1284).2Wealsoknow thata
further version of theEstoria was produced in the time of Sancho IV, the ‘Versión
amplificada’ (1289). As Fernández-Ordóñez explains, the Estoria has a textual
transmissionthatis ‘unadelasmáscomplejaseintricadasdelahistoriadenuestra
literaturamedieval’.3Asstatedabove,themostsignificantprinteditionoftheEstoria
ofmoderntimesisRamónMenéndezPidal’sPrimeraCrónicaGeneral(PCG).4Catalán
tells us, ‘el jovenMenéndez Pidal [era] bien instruido en losmétodos de la crítica
textualdetradiciónlachmaniana’,5andthiseditionusesprimarilythecodicesE1and
2Fernández-Ordóñez,‘VariaciónenelmodeloalfonsíenelsigloXIII’,p.423Fernández-Ordóñez,‘Latransmisióntextual’,p.2194MenéndezPidal,PrimeraCrónicaGeneral.ThefulltitleisPrimeraCrónicaGeneral(EstoriadeEspañaquemandócomponerAlfonsoelSabioysecontinuababajoSanchoIVen1289)’.Thiswaspublishedin1906,1955and1977.Thisthesisusesthe1955edition.5DiegoCatalán,Delasilvatextualaltallerhistoriográficoalfonsí–Códices,crónicas,versionesycuadernosdetrabajo(Madrid:FundaciónRamónMenéndezPidal,UniversidadAutónomadeMadrid,1997)p.14.Myitalics.
217
E2, as he considered thesemanuscripts to beAlfonsine.6However, in 1962Catalán
showedthatalthoughE1isAlfonsine,E2isinfactacompositemanuscriptdatingtothe
timeofAlfonsoXI.7Fernández-Ordóñez states that the compositor is likely tohave
beenFernánSánchezdeValladolid,8achancellorduringthereignofAlfonsoXIandthe
authoroftheCrónicadeAlfonsoXIandCrónicadetresreyes,9whousedmaterialfrom
variouspointsintimetocreatethecodex.ThefirstseventeenfoliosofE2areAlfonsine,
andweretakenfromE1tostartE2,andtherearealsofoliosfromthe1289versionof
theEstoria,aswellasfoliosaddedinthefourteenthcentury.10ThePCGisthereforean
editionofthetwoEcodices,ratherthantheAlfonsineversionofthework,butlargely,
forallthoseexceptscholarsoftheAlfonsineoeuvre,andinparticulartheEstoriade
Espanna,theEstoriaandthePCGaresynonymous.
AlthoughAlfonsoXwastheoriginalauthororpatronoftheEstoria,theverynatureof
medievaltextualitymeansthatafterhisdeaththeworktookonsomewhatofalifeof
itsown.Thesectionsemendedoraddedlaterhavebecometoberegardedaspartof
theEstoria,whichscholarsconsidertobepartoftheAlfonsinetaller,eventhoughparts
ofwhat now constitutes theEstoria have only formedpartof thework since after
Alfonso’s death. A general reader of the Estoria both nowadays and in the years
followingthedeathofAlfonsowouldbeunlikelytoknoworcareifthematerialwithin
themanuscriptwaswrittenbythework’soriginalauthor.Wesawabovehowinthe
6DelaCampa,‘LaVersiónprimitiva’,607Catalán,DeAlfonsoXalCondedeBarcelos,pp.73-758Fernández-Ordóñez,‘Latransmisióntextual’,p.2439FernandoGómezRedondo,‘CrónicadeAlfonsoXI’,inCarlosAlvarandJoséManuelLucíaMegías(eds.),DiccionarioFilológicodeLiteraturaMedievalEspañola.Textosytransmisión.(Madrid:Castalia,2002)pp.278-284,p.27810Fernández-Ordóñez,‘Latransmisióntextual’,p.243
218
latemedievalperiodtheredidnotexistthemodernnotionofauthorshipwherethe
work ‘belongs’ to its author: contemporary readerswould emend the text, scribes
wouldmakechangestothecontentororthography,wholesectionscouldbeaddedor
removedwithoutwarning,inawaythatwouldnotbepossibleinthemodernday.Itis
onlymodernscholarsof theEstoriawhowouldbe likely togivemuchmorethana
passinginteresttothefactthatnotallofwhatiscontainedinthePCGwascomposed
in Alfonso’s taller. One section of the PCG that did not appear in the Alfonsine
version(s)oftheEstoriaistheCPSF.ItisthissectionthatIwilluseasacasestudyto
examinethepracticeofdigitallyeditingmedievalproseinCastilian.Thissectionhas
beenchosenasitisofsufficientlengthtoprovidematerialforanalysis,andexistsin
twoofthemanuscriptsbeingtranscribedaspartoftheEstoriaDigital,ofwhichthis
thesis forms a part. Furthermore, tomy knowledge, theCPSF is yet to be digitally
edited, so aswell as servingme as a case study of an example of digitally editing
medievalprose,theeditioncreatedwillhopefullybeofusetolaterscholars.
3.2TheCrónicaparticulardeSanFernando:Textandcontext
3.2.1Witnessesandeditions
TheCPSFcanbefoundinfolios316rto359vofE2,attheendofthecodex.WithinE2,
muchoftheCPSFexistsinasectionremarkablebecauseofachangeinhandfromthe
thirteenth-centuryoneoffolios257rto320vtothemid-fourteenth-centuryhandseen
infolio321onwards.Thisisalsobelievedtobethehandofanumberoffoliosinserted
219
intoE2(folios18-22,80-81,200-256).11TheworkofCatalánallowsustodatethetext
oftheCPSFfollowingthehandchangeinE2totheearlyfourteenthcentury.12Atextual
referencetoFernandoIV(1295-1312)astherulingkinginmanuscriptsD(Biblioteca
Nacional, Madrid, 10273), S (Biblioteca Nacional, Madrid, 9233) and Ss (Caja de
AhorrosdeSalamanca,40)hasenabledscholarstodatethistextmorepreciselytothe
last years of his reign.13The text of E2 is reproduced inMenéndez Pidal'sPrimera
CrónicaGeneral.
TheCPSFcanalsobefoundinthefifteenth-centurycodexSsbetweenfolios279vand
325r.14Furtherwitnesses of theCPSF can be found inmanuscript F of theEstoria
(BibliotecaUniversitariadeSalamanca2628)(uptotheconquestofCordoba15),inthe
CrónicadelsantoreydonFernando,knowntoscholarsoftheCPSFasmanuscriptD,
andtheCrónicadetresreyes,knownasmanuscriptS.16Hijanostatesthatthelattertwo
manuscripts,DandS,aretwoofthethreebestknownwitnessesoftheCPSF,outof
aroundthirtymanuscriptsandmorethantwentyprintededitions.Itisoneofthelatter
whichHijanotellsusisthethirdofthethreebestknownwitnesses.17Itisthesefive
11Fernández-Ordóñez,‘Latransmisióntextual’,p.24312Catalán,DeAlfonsoXalCondedeBarcelos,p.81n.1113FernándezGallardo,247.ManuelHijanopointedoutintheexaminationofthisthesisthattherulingkingnotedinFisSanchoIV,andinE2thecorrespondingpassageisillegible.14Fernández-Ordóñez,‘Latransmisióntextual’,p.24915Fernández-Ordóñez,‘Latransmisióntextual’,p.22916MarianodelaCampa,‘CrónicaParticulardeSanFernando’,CarlosAlvarandJoséManuelLucíaMegías(eds.),DiccionarioFilológicodeLiteraturaMedievalEspañola.Textosytransmisión.(Madrid:Castalia,2002)pp.358-363,p.360CrónicadelsantoreydonFernando:BibliotecaNacional,Madrid,10273;Imagesavailableat:http://bdh-rd.bne.es/viewer.vm?id=0000042651&page=1(checked29/08/2017)Crónicadetresreyes:BibliotecaNacional,Madrid,9233;Imagesavailableat:http://bdh-rd.bne.es/viewer.vm?id=0000096079&page=1(checked29/08/2017)17HijanoVillegas,‘CrónicaParticulardeSanFernando:composiciónytransmisión’,pp.1-2
220
manuscripts(E2,Ss,S,DandF)whicharebeingusedtopreparethedigitaleditionof
theCPSF.
TheCPSFalsoappearsasthefinalpartofseveralwitnessesoftheCrónicadeveinte
reyes.Alistofthesewitnesses,asprovidedbyMarianodelaCampaisasfollows:18
BBibliotecaMenéndezPelayo(Santander):549(olim.R-jj-11-8)(16thcenturymanuscript)CBibliotecaNacionaldeMadrid:1.507(olim.F-124(16thcenturymanuscript)FBibliotecaNacional(Madrid):1.501(olim.F-132yF-113)(16thcenturymanuscript)GBibliotecaNacional(Madrid):18.416(olim.1.079)(16thcenturymanuscript)JBibliotecadelMonasteriodeElEscorial:X-I-6(olim.I-N.7yI.D.11)(15thcenturymanuscript)KBibliotecaUniversitariadeSalamanca:2.211(olim.2-M-lRealBiblioteca)(16thcenturymanuscipt)LBibliotecadelMonasteriodeElEscorial(Madrid):X-TI-24(olim.V.S.14yY.B.16)(16thcenturymanuscript)NBibliotecadelMonasteriodeElEscorial(Madrid);Y-I-12{olim.II.N.7andl.D.ll)(15thcenturymanuscript)N’RealBiblioteca(Madrid):11-2347(olim.2-K-8)(16thcenturymanuscript)ÑBibliotecaMenéndezPelayo(Santander):159(15thcenturymanuscript)19
18DelaCampa,‘CrónicaParticulardeSanFernando’,pp.360-362.DelaCampa’sviewthatallofthesewitnessesarederivedfromthefirstprintededition(Seville:JacoboCromberger,1516,heldattheHispanicSocietyofAmerica,NewYork)isnotuncontested.ElsewherehestatesthatthisprintededitionisbasedontheversionofthechroniclefoundinEstoriamanuscriptSs.MarianodelaCampa,‘Crónicadeveintereyes’,Revistadeliteraturamedieval15:1,(2003)141-156,144-147,https://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/articulo?codigo=973303,[accessed29/08/2017]19DelaCampa,‘Crónicadeveintereyes’,144-147.
221
The CPSF appears in translation in the fourteenth-century codex of the Estoria in
Galician-PortugueseknownasmanuscriptA(BibliotecaNacionaldeMadrid8817,in
folios230r-265rwhicharelaterthantherestofthemanuscript).20TheCPSFenjoyed
considerablesuccess in thecenturies that followed: itwasprinted inno fewerthan
fifteen editions between 1516 and 1616. 21 Funes explains that the CPSF was
‘incorporated as the final part in the manuscript tradition of the alphonsine [sic]
EstoriadeEspañaanditsderivatives’.22ThetextispresentinthePCGinchapters1029
to1135,whichareequivalenttotheEstoriaDigital’stextualdivisions1040to1146.23
AlthoughtheCPSFdatestoatimeafterthedeathofAlfonsoX,itsinclusioninthePCG
andlaterworksontheEstoria,forexamplethatofInésFernández-Ordóñez,24shows
that, as Funes explains above, it is now considered by scholars andmore general
readersaliketobepartoftheEstoriadeEspanna.
20Fernández-Ordóñez,‘Latransmisióntextual’,p.23921DelaCampa,‘CrónicaParticulardeSanFernando’,pp.360-36122LeonardoFunes,‘CrónicaparticulardeSanFernando’inGraemeDunphy(ed.),EncyclopediaoftheMedievalChronicle,Vol.I.(Leiden,Boston:Brill,2010)pp.386-38723ThedifferenceinchapternumberingbetweentheEstoriaDigitalandthePCGisowingtothefactthattheEstoriaDigitalnumberseverychapterconsecutively–therearesomechaptersnumberedintheEstoriaDigitalwhicharenotnumberedinthePCG(forexample,theprologue,orduetoerrorsinnumberinginthePCG).InthiswaytheEstoriaDigitalnumberingsystemenablesequivalenceacrossallwitnesses,andallowsforelectroniccollation,SeeEstoriadeEspannaDigital,‘Methodology’,http://estoria.bham.ac.uk/blog/?page_id=923#preparation-of-the-data[accessed12/06/2018];andWard,‘TheEstoriadeEspannaDigital:Collatingmedievalprose’,16.24Fernández-Ordóñez,‘Latransmisióntextual’,pp.229,236,237,238,239,243,249,254.
222
3.2.2Historicalcontext
AsFrakerremindsus,historicaltextsareaproductoftheexternalcontextinwhich
theywerewritten.25Thehistoricalcontextofatextisthereforeofgreatsignificanceto
itseditor,andcanrevealcluesofhowtoedit,suchaswhattoinclude,whattoemend
andwhattoregularise,basedonwhoislikelytowanttousetheeditionandhow.Funes
placestheCPSFwithinitshistoricalcontext:alongside‘todaslasprevencionesquese
requierenaldataruntextoporreferenciasinternas’,heusestextualevidencewithin
theCPSFtodatethepartofthechronicleequivalenttothatafterthehandchangeinE2
tothereignofFernandoIVofCastileandLeon(r.1295-1312).Funespointsoutthat
thetextreferencesthedifficultiesofdefendingMartosfromaMoorishattack,andthat
bythetimetheCPSFwascompletedthetownwasatthattimestrongerthanithad
been, prior to the attack. This strength, Funes states, did not arrive until the early
fourteenthcentury,whichallowsustodatethechronicleevenmoreprecisely.26The
CPSF dates to a period during which royal authority was repeatedly questioned:
following the death of Alfonso X, Sancho became king. This was unsuccessfully
disputedbythelatter’snephewAlfonsodelaCerda,eldestsonofAlfonso’slateeldest
son, whose claim to the thronewas supported by France and Aragon. The papacy
refused to recognise Sancho’s marriage to his second cousin María de Molina as
legitimateuntiltheirsonFernandowassixyearsold.Fernandobecamekingattheage
of nine upon the death of his father in 1295, and due to hisminority, hismother
assumedtheregencyuntiltheking’scomingofage.Atthesametime,theReconquest
25Fraker,9626Funes,La‘Estoriacabadelante’,p.651
223
campaign continued with the capturing of Gibraltar by Castile and the besiege of
Algeciras,althoughunrestamongsttheCastiliannoblesforcedFernandoIVtoliftthe
siege in1310,before ithadachieved itsaim.27It isagainst thispolitically turbulent
background that the CPSF was completed, and placed as the conclusion to the
unfinishedEstoria.Itwasnotuntil1325,morethanadecadeatleastaftertheCPSF
wascompleted,thatthepoliticalsituationwascalmed:FernandoIV’ssonAlfonsoXI
becameamonarchininfancy,uponhisfather’sdeathin1312.Thistooledtoaregency:
thisonewithalonganddrawn-outstruggleamongstfactionsofthefamily.28Around
thetimeofhiscomingofagein1325,therebelliousnoblesweresubduedthrougha
seriesofexecutionsandtheimpositionofexiles,andtheauthorityofthemonarchy
wasfinallyrestored.29
3.2.3Significanceofthechronicle
Unliketheearliestrecensionsof theEstoria, theCPSFwasnotproducedwithinthe
royalcourt.Funesarguesforasubgroupofchronicles,towhichtheCPSFwouldbelong:
‘aquella producida por un cronista ligado a la corte pero que trabajo
independientementedelpatrocinio regio’.30He states that ‘laproduccióncronística
vernáculadeestossiglos[XIII,XIV]estaríainvariablementeligadaalpoderregio’.31
LuisFernándezGallardohasdescribedthatoneofitsfunctionswasapro-monarchic
27Barton,pp.73-7428Barton,p.7429Barton,pp.73-7430Funes,‘Historiografíanobiliaria’,7831Funes,‘Historiografíanobiliaria’,79
224
propagandising one, aiming to ‘conseguir la adhesión de la nobleza a la causa
monárquica’, which he describes as a trait of post-Alfonsine historiography.32The
ideology,hepointsout,favoursMaríadeMolina,shownwithinthetextbyboththe
prominenceofFernandoIII’smotherBerenguela,whoasseenabove,wasapolitical
tourdeforceduringherson’sreign,asa‘tácitavindicacióndelaactuacióndeMaríade
Molina’, andalsoby theglorificationof theMolina line,33whosemilitary troop, the
cabalgada de Jerez, is seen as key to the Andalusian conquests of Fernando III. 34
FernandoGómezRedondostatesthatthechronicle‘constituyeunapiezasingulardel
entramadocortesanoconqueel‘molinismo’pretendeafirmarsealamuertedeSancho
IV,eneseperíododedifícilminoridad’.35
The CPSF is significant both in terms of content and historiography. Funes has
describedthechronicleas‘lapiezahistoriográficamássignificativadelperíodopost-
alfonsí’.36Elsewherehehasexplainedthatitisonlytherapidpoliticalchangesatthe
end of the thirteenth century that could explain the ideological difference in the
historiographicalculturebetweentheAlfonsinechroniclesandthatoftheCPSF.37He
explainsthatwhilsttheAlfonsinemethodwastorelatehistoryfromamonarchicpoint
ofview,andassuchthehistory is toldasaseriesofunequivocal factsor ‘unidades
32FernándezGallardo,24933FernándezGallardo,24734FernándezGallardo,247n.835FernandoGómezRedondo,Historiadelaprosamedievalcastellana,Vol.II.Eldesarrollodelosgéneros.Laficcióncaballerescayelordenreligioso.(Madrid:Cátedra,1999),p,123836LeonardoFunes,‘Dosversionesantagónicasdelahistoriaydelaley:unavisióndelahistoriografíacastellanadeAlfonsoXalCancillerAyala’,AengusWard(ed.)Teoríayprácticadelahistoriografíahispánicamedieval(Birmingham:UniversityofBirminghamPress,2000),pp.8-31,p.1637LeonardoFunes,‘EllugardelaCrónicaParticulardeSanFernandoenelsistemadelasformascronísticascastellanasdeprincipiosdelsigloXIV’,AIH,ActasdelXIICongresodelaAsociaciónInternacionaldeHispanistas(Birmingham,21-26August1995),Vol.1(1998)176-182,178https://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/articulo?codigo=1355830,[accessed15/09/2016]
225
discretas del continuum de la experiencia humana’, the viewpoint in the CPSF is
aristocratic,ratherthanstemmingfromthecentralroyalpower.38Theresultofthis
changedpointofviewisthatthenarrativevoice,whichfrequentlyinterruptstheflow
ofthetext,39addsacommentarytoorientatethereaderthroughtheuseofreasoning.40
As Funes reminds us, this should be understood in the historical context of the
politically turbulent period of the CPSF’s production, during which the regency
situationmeantthatthattheroleofthearistocracyinCastilewasevenmoresignificant
thanusual.41Italsosuggests,heargueselsewhere,thattheCPSFwasnotwritteninthe
royalcourt,42astheAlfonsinetextshadbeen.
FernándezGallardogivesusmoreinformationaboutthecontentoftheCPSFandits
significance.Tosomeextent,theplanfortheCPSFwastofillinagapthathadbeenleft
byAlfonso’sunfinishedEstoria,whichhadnotachieveditsaimoffullyrecountingthe
reignofAlfonso’sfatherFernandoIII.TheEstoriaends,whetheronpurposeorbecause
thiswasallthatthoseworkinginthetallerhadmanagedtowrite,atFernando’s1236
conquestofCordoba,43whilsthisreigncontinueduntilhisdeath in1252.TheCPSF
dealswiththereignofFernandoIII,44andthechronicleendswiththeentombmentof
theking.
38Funes,‘EllugardelaCrónicaParticulardeSanFernando’,180-18139FernándezGallardo,25440FernándezGallardo,25941Funes,‘EllugardelaCrónicaParticulardeSanFernando’,18242Funes,La‘Estoriacabadelante’,p.65143Fernández-Ordóñez,‘Latransmisióntextual’,p.229;notethatthesectionrelatingtotheconquestofCordobadoesnotappearinallwitnessesoftheEstoria:itappearsthatthissectionmayhavebeen(orwasplannedtobe)inaquireofwhatisnowE2butwaslost(ornevercompleted)–otherwitnesses,suchasF,doincludetheCordobasection.44FernándezGallardo,248-249
226
3.2.4ThepresentationofFernandoIII
FernandoIIIisdescribedbyAngusMacKayasakingof ‘firmnessofpurpose’andof
‘practicalachievements’,who‘alwayssethimselfspecificobjectivesandconcentrated
on achieving them’. 45 Through Fernando, Fernández Gallardo explains, Castile
achieved a historical peak only rivalled by that of the Catholic Kings.He gives two
reasons for this: firstly, through Fernando the kingdoms of Castile and Leonwere
uniteddefinitively,andsecondly,Fernandowasanextremelysuccessfulwarrior,and
duringhisreign,extraordinaryadvancesweremadeinthereconquestofAndalusia.
TheculminationofFernando’seffortswastheconquestofSevillein1248.46TheCPSF
remarks on the speed of the conquest, giving two causes: Fernando’s skilled
warriorship,andthesupportofGod.47FernandoispresentedintheCPSFasakingwho
achievedadivinegoal,andasaresultofhissuccesswonGod’s favour.48Fernández
Gallardogoesontogiveexamplesofthepro-monarchicpropagandaintheCPSF,inthe
context of the early fourteenth century. In both 1296 and 1303 there had been
unsuccessful attempts to divide the kingdomand once again separate Castile from
Leon.ThroughouttheCPSFFernandoisseenasthekingwhounitedthetwokingdoms,
andhislegitimacytoboththrones,andthereforethatofhisdescendants,isstressed.
Fernandoisshownastheheroofthechronicle,andisreferredtoas‘noble’and‘bien
aventurado’.TheuseinthelaterchaptersoftheCPSFof‘santo’todescribeFernando
raises his status even further, from a great warrior and noble king to the upper
45Mackay,p.5846FernándezGallardo,24547FernándezGallardo,26048FernándezGallardo,259
227
echelonsofreligiousimportance.49Fernandowascanonizedforhisachievementson
thebattlefield,butthiswasnotuntiltheseventeenthcentury,sotheuseintheCPSFof
‘santo’isstylisticandhonorific.Furthermore,thechroniclecomesnotlongafterthat
ofanotherEuropeanmonarchofthecrusades,LouisIXofFrance,whowasalsolater
canonized, and whose chronicle La Vie de saint Louis was completed in 1309.
FernándezGallardoexplainsthatwhilsttheCPSFdoesnottaketheViedesaintLouis
asamodelassuch,thecreationofLouis’chroniclegavetheideathatabreakawaytext
focussingon justonemonarchwas possible, and that historiesdid not necessarily
simplyhavetofollowthegeneralmodeltheyhadtodate.50
3.2.5Structure,keyfeaturesandsources
ThetextoftheCPSFistheearliestfullrecountingoftheReconquestcampaignsleading
uptotheconquestofSeville.51AsFernándezGallardopointsout,althoughwecallthe
texta ‘chronicle’, thetextrefers to itselfasan ‘estoria’,meaningboth ‘historia’and
‘cuento’.52Thissecondmeaningisechoedintheverbsusedtodescribethenarrative
voice:both‘decir’and‘contar’areused.53Theaudienceissaidto‘oír’,suggestingthat
thistextwaswrittentobereadaloud,54aswasoftenthecaseinthemedievalcontext.55
Thenarrativevoiceusesthefirstpersonpluralform,followingmonarchicconvention
49FernándezGallardo,25250FernándezGallardo,24851FernándezGallardo,25452FernándezGallardo,249-25153FernándezGallardo,249,25454FernándezGallardo,25455Funes,‘EllugardelaCrónicaParticulardeSanFernando’,177
228
andechoingthatusedbyAlfonsoXintheEstoria.56Thestructureofthechronicleis
simple,withjusttwoparts:partoneisatranslationofRodrigoJiménezdeRada’sDe
rebusHispaniae, thehistoryof Spain to theyear1243whichwas commissionedby
FernandoIII,withsomeextramaterialaddedasexplanationorcommentarybythe
figure whom Funes labels the ‘arreglador’ of the text; and part two, called by the
chroniclerthe‘estoriacabadelante’,57istheremainderofFernando’sreign,fromthe
second time he went to Cordoba, to his death,58 with a focus on the conquest of
Seville.59
Fernández-OrdóñezexplainsthatthesourceforpartoneoftheCPSFcameprimarily
fromthe1289VersiónamplificadaoftheEstoriadeEspanna.60InE2,thefirstpartof
thetextreferringtoFernandoIIIappearsaspartofthisSanchinetext,ratherthanafter
thehandchange,which,accordingtoFernández-Ordóñez,isgenerallyrecognisedas
wheretheCPSFstartsinthismanuscript.61Followingherargument,onecouldsaythat
theseSanchinefoliosarethereforeasourcefortheCPSF.Aswewillseebelow,thetext
referringtoFernandoIIIthatappearsinthe1289foliosofE2alsoappearsintheother
witnessesthathavebeenusedtomakethisedition,althoughtheCPSFitselfisusually
consideredafourteenth-centurywork.62Thisraisesanimportantquestionastowhat
exactlyconstitutestheCPSF,andwhethertheSanchinefoliosareasourcefortheCPSF,
orwhethertheyaretheCPSF.Iwillreturntothisbelow.
56FernándezGallardo,25457Funes,La‘Estoriacabadelante’,p.65058Funes,La‘Estoriacabadelante’,p.65159Funes,‘EllugardelaCrónicaParticulardeSanFernando’,177-17960Fernández-Ordóñez,‘Latransmisióntextual’,pp.236-23761Fernández-Ordóñez,‘Latransmisióntextual’,p.243.62FernándezGallardo,247
229
ThemainsourcefortheEstoriahadbeenDerebusHispaniae,sothisbecame,inturn,a
majorsourceforthesectionoftheCPSFto1243,thelatterbeingthe‘inexcusablepunto
departidadecualquierhistoriadelreinadodeFernandoIII’.63ThereignofFernando
past1236 isnot recounted in theEstoria.We have seen that theplan for theCPSF
differedsomuchfromthatoftheEstoria,thattheCPSFcanbeconsideredtobepartof
a different genre from that of the Alfonsine histories – that is, the royal chronicle
focussingon justonemonarchasopposed toapanoramichistory.Becauseof this,
apartfromthetranslationwithintheEstoriaofDerebus,therestoftheEstoriawasnot
usefulasasourcefortheCPSF.64AsdescribedbyFunes,inpartoneoftheCPSFthe
chronicler faithfully reproduces the translation of De rebus, hardly retouching or
emending it at all. Instead he merely adds supplementary material such as
explanations that hemust have deemednecessary for clear comprehension by the
audience.65Indoingsoheismakingacleardistinctionbetweenthehistoriographyof
theCPSFandthatoftheAlfonsineperiod,sinceheissuggestingtheexistenceofgaps
intheinformationofelToledano’stext.Uptothispointthelatterhadbeenconsidered
oneofthemainhistoriographicalauthoritiesandwasaprimarysourceforthemost
importanthistoricalworksoftheperiod.JiménezdeRadawasafigureofsignificant
politicalimportanceduringthefirsthalfofthethirteenthcenturynotonlyinIberia,
but in thewholeofWesternEurope,andhischroniclewasconsideredthebestand
mostimportantofalltheLatinchroniclesofthePeninsula.66Infaithfullytranslating
63FernándezGallardo,26164FernándezGallardo,24965Funes,‘EllugardelaCrónicaParticulardeSanFernando’,177-178;FunesLa‘Estoriacabadelante’,p.65266AengusWard,‘LaEstoriadelosGodos:¿Laprimeracrónicacastellana?’,Revistadepoéticamedieval,8(2002),181-198,182;AlistofthesourcesofDerebusHispaniaearepresentedbyGeorgesMartininLesjugesdeCastille,pp.258-259
230
De rebus, but also adding supplementary explanatorymaterial, the compiler of the
CPSFissimultaneouslyrecognisingthehistoricaltraditionofwhichbothDerebusand
theCPSFformpart,anddistancingthechroniclefrom,67anddevaluingelToledano’s
text.ThiswasasignificantmoveawayfromtheAlfonsinehistoriographicalstyletothe
post-Alfonsinemethod.68Itisnoteworthyalso,thatmuchofthetextthatisaddedto
the translationofDe rebusrelates to theCabalgadade Jerez,69anexpeditionby the
military troopwhich accompanied Fernando III in his Reconquest campaigns, and
which,asseenabove,ispresentedintheCPSFaskeytothemonarch’ssuccess.70The
Cabalgadawas ledby InfanteAlfonso, the fatherofMaríadeMolinaandbrotherof
Fernando III,71which is anexampleof theafore-mentionedglorificationwithin the
CPSFoftheMolinaline,andofthepropagandizingfunctionofthechronicle.72
ThesecondpartoftheCPSF,isreferredtobyscholarsasthe‘seguimiento’,73orasthe
‘estoria cabadelante’, 74 as it is called by the chronicler himself. Both terms make
referencetothecontentbeingacontinuationfromthepointwhereJiménezdeRada
leftoff.75ThissectiondealswiththefinalyearsofthereignofFernandowhichdonot
appear inDe rebus, andeventsafter thedeathof elToledano,76so clearlyhiswork
67FernándezGallardo,26368Funes,‘EllugardelaCrónicaParticulardeSanFernando’,177-17869Funes,‘EllugardelaCrónicaParticulardeSanFernando’,17870FernándezGallardo,24771ManuelHijanoVillegas,‘Fuentesromancesdelascrónicasgenerales:EltestimoniodelaHistoriamenosatajante’,HispanicResearchJournal,12:2(2011)118-134,12872FernándezGallardo,247,24973FernándezGallardo,253;ManuelHijanogivesthetitle‘SeguimientodelToledano’,in‘ContinuacionesdelToledano:elcasodelaHistoriahasta1288dialogada’,inFranciscoBautista(ed.),ElRelatohistoriográfico:TextosytradicionesenlaEspañamedieval,(London:QueenMaryandWestfieldCollege,2006),pp.123-148,p.12674Funes,‘EllugardelaCrónicaParticulardeSanFernando’,179;Funes,La‘Estoriacabadelante’,p.65075Funes,La‘Estoriacabadelante’,p.647,p.65076Funes,La‘Estoriacabadelante’,p.644
231
couldnotbethesourceforthesection.Instead,accordingtoFernándezGallardo,the
sources were the documents from the royal chancellery and the memories of the
Andalusiancampaignsthathadsurvivedthehalfcenturybetweentheeventsandthe
creationof theCPSF throughoral transmission, including,ascouldbeexpected, the
‘inevitabledeformación’ofthefactscharacteristicoftaleswhicharetoldinthisway.77
Funesexplainsthat thissecondsectioncanbedivided intothreeparts: (i)material
abouttheCabalgadadeJerez;(ii)analternativeaccountoftheconquestofCordoba;
and(iii)thedeedsofFernandoIIIfromhissecondarrivalinCordobauntilhisdeath.78
Thesamecharactersappearinallthreesectionsoftheseguimiento,Funespointsout,
and the third section contains various references to the facts narrated in the two
earlier sections. 79 A prominent characteristic of the seguimiento, as noted by
FernándezGallardo,istherepeateduseofanimateddialogues,whichhearguesadds
‘variedad y viveza’ to the text.80These dialogues, he explains, see Fernando’s role
reducedtothebackground,whilsttheinterlocutors,twonotablearistocratsLorenzo
77FernándezGallardo,264-26578Funes,La‘Estoriacabadelante’,p.65179Funes,La‘Estoriacabadelante’,p.65180FernándezGallardo,256
232
Suárez and Garçi Pérez de Vargas, 81 are foregrounded, showing the aristocratic
viewpointandbiasofthetext.82
3.2.6WhatconstitutestheCPSF?
ThereisgeneralscholarlyagreementthattheCPSFisfourteenth-century,datingtothe
lastyearsofthereignofFernandoIV,83andthatpartofthe1289sectionoftheEstoria
wasasourcefortheCPSF.84Thesituationismorecomplicated,however,giventhatin
E2elementsofthetextoftheCPSFwasinexistenceduringthereignofSanchoIV.85In
otherwitnesses,thissectionoftextisconsideredtobepartoftheworkoftheCPSF.
WithinE2,theCPSFhasbeennotedbyFernández-Ordóñeztostartatthehandchange
(EstoriaDigitaldiv1046).86Priortothis,thematerialisconsideredtobepartofthe
1289Versiónamplificada.OthermanuscriptsplacethestartoftheCPSFearlier.The
textofdivs1040-1045,sopriortothehandchangeinE2,isnoticeablysimilarinallfive
81LorenzoSuárezwasaGaliciannoblemanwhoFernandoIIIhadsentintoexileformisconductduringthereignofAlfonsoIX.SuárezhadthejoinedthemilitaryentourageoftheMuslimleaderIbnHud.HelaterrepentedandinordertogainthepardonofFernandoIII,duringthecampaigntoregainCordobagavedetailstothekingofIbnHud’splansanddoubtsinattackingtheking’sbattlecampandgaveadviceonhowtodissuadeIbnHudfromdoingso.ThekingpardonedSuárezandtookhisadvice.AsaresultoftheactionsthemonarchtookbasedonSuárez’ssuggestions,IbnHūdretreatedandsoonafterwardswaskilled,leavingCordobawiththeirEmir.FernandowasthenabletotakeCordoba.SeeFranciscoAnsón,FernandoIII:ReydeCastillayLeón(Madrid:Palabra,1998)pp.149-151;GarçiPérezdeVargaswasaprominentanddistinguishedmemberofthecabalgadadeJerez.HisbrotherDiegoPérezdeVargaswasalsoaneminentfigureinthecabalgadaandwasawardedtheepithet‘Machuca’tobeusedbyhimandhisdescendantsasasurnamebecauseofhisactionsinthebattleofJerez.SeeFernándezGallardo,247n.8andMarianoGildeBalenchana,‘Apuntesnobiliarios–LosVargas’,NuevaAcademiaHeráldica(1913),p.11andonwards,quotedathttp://www.losvargas.org/historia/1913_apuntes_nobiliarios.html,[accessed21/09/2016]82FernándezGallardo,25883FernándezGallardo,24784GómezRedondo,Historiadelaprosamedievalcastellana,p.1240;Fernández-Ordóñez,‘Latransmisióntextual’,pp.236-23785GómezRedondo,Historiadelaprosamedievalcastellana,p.123986Fernández-Ordóñez,‘Latransmisióntextual’,p.243.Theterms‘div’and‘ab’arediscussedmorefullyinthischapter.Briefly,‘div’isshortfortextual‘division’(=chapter),and‘ab’standsfor‘anonymousblock’(≈sentence).
233
witnesses:87thesourceforthissectioninE2wasDerebusHispaniae,88whichthanksto
workbyFernandezGallardoandFunes,weknowtohavehardlybeenemendedatall,
althoughsomesupplementaryorexplanatorymaterialwasadded.89
Immediatelyprior todiv1040 inE2 is a sectionaboutEnrique I, and the chronicle
statesthatitwilltelloftheburialoftheyoungking.Followingthisisawholefolioleft
blank,butruled.Thenweseetherubricfordiv1040–thisrubricisaboutthestartof
thereignofFernandoIII.Wefindaseventeen-linegap,leftpresumablyforaminiature
ofFernando,andthenanotherrubric,abouthowFernandocametopowerinCastile.
From this point on we do not find any gaps. The only exception is the missing
miniature, although this isnot surprising, as therearenominiatures in this codex,
despitevariousgapsbeing left for thispurpose.ThetextaboutFernandocontinues
untiltheendoffolio320v.Thetextofthisfolioendsmid-sentence,andwefindthe
catchword‘santa’,showingthatthiswastheendofaquire.Thesubsequentquire(s)
from1289however,arelost,anddeteriorationtothefoliosarounddiv1045suggests
that this loss took place early in the life of thismanuscript, before the fourteenth-
centurysectionwasaddedbythecompilerofE2,whichFernández-Ordóñeztellsus
was probably some time between 1321 and 1344. 90 It is clear from the textual
evidence,giventhegapsprior to thesectionaboutFernando,but lackofgaps from
Fernando onwards, that by no later than 1289 a section of the Estoria relating
87Afullstemmatologicalstudywouldberequiredtoascertainbeyondthepointofreasonabledoubttherelationshipbetweenthefivemanuscripts.Thisisnottheaimofthisthesis,butitwouldcertainlybeaninterestingpathforfuturestudy.88FernándezGallardo,26389FernándezGallardo,263;Funes,‘EllugardelaCrónicaParticulardeSanFernando’,177-17890Fernández-Ordóñez,‘Latransmisióntextual’,p.243
234
specificallytoFernandoIIIhadalreadybeenconceived,butatthetimeiswascertainly
asectionaboutFernandowithintherestoftheEstoria,andnotachronicleonlyabout
him, which we have seen is considered characteristic of post-Alfonsine
historiography. 91 The section added to E2, from where the hand changes to a
fourteenth-centuryone,startswith‘santa’,thecatchwordpriortothemissingquire,
addingevidencetothesuggestionthatthisquirewaslostearly,orperhapseventhat,
althoughitwasplanned,totheextentoftherebeingacatchwordforittobeginwith,
it was never actually realised. The structure of the CPSF being as it is, it is not
unreasonabletoassume,asCatalándoes,thatthetextofthisquiremayhavebeenthat
whichisnowuptodiv1060,wherethesectionoftheCPSFtranslatedfromDerebus
ends.92AquireinE2isaround1500linesofXML.Therearearound1500linesbetween
wherethehandchanges,andwhereDerebusends.Thisleadsmetobelievethatthere
isone1289quiremissingattheendofE2.93
E2aside,theotherthreemanuscriptsofthedigitalCPSFwithboththeSanchinetext
(divs1040-1045)94andthefourteenth-centurytextoftheCPSF(1046onwards)–that
is,Ss,DandS–presentthisasonework.Bythetimethesethreewitnesseswerecopied
intotheforminwhichtheyareextanttoday,theCPSFexistedasaconceptualentity,a
work,whichcouldbeseparatedfromtheEstoria,andwhichcoveredtheperiodfrom
the coming topowerofFernando III tohisdeath.Falso considers theCPSF not to
91FernándezGallardo,24992DelaCampainAlvarandLucíaMegías,p.359;Catalán,DeAlfonsoXalCondedeBarcelos,32-8793FurtherevidencetowardsthispointisthatmanuscriptFendsmid-sentenceindiv1058,andasinE2,thereisacatchwordforaquirethatisnotextant.94By‘Sanchine’here,ImeanincludedinE2duringthereignofSanchoIV.Tothebestofmyknowledge,itisunclearwhetherornotthismaterialwascopiedfromdraftswhichexistedpriortothedeathofAlfonsoX.
235
simplybetheconcludingsectionof theEstoria,asshowninthechapternumbering
seen inbothmanuscriptsFandS.95Evidenceof thesemanuscripts considering the
CPSFtobeonetextfromchapter1040onwardscanbeseeninthechapternumbering
intherubricsoftwoofthesemanuscripts.Bothofthesemanuscriptslabeldiv1040as
chapter 1. F gives two chapter numbers for each chapter from1040onwards. The
rubricof1040inFstartsasfollows:
Capituloclxxxdestelibro⁊CapituloprimerodelRegnadodelterçeroReydonferrnandoq96
WhenscholarstalkoftheCPSFasafourteenth-centurywork,onecouldarguethatit
wouldbemoreaccuratetothinkofthisasbeingthetimewhentheCPSFwascompleted
byaddingthefourteenth-centuryseguimientoontothe1289foliosoftheEstoria,and
thepointfromwhichtheCrónicawasconsideredtobeaworkinitsownrightandnot
justthelastsectionoftheEstoria.Intermsofediting,thisposesanissueinthatwe
needtodecidewhetherornottheSanchinematerialinE2formspartoftheCPSFor
not–itisthetextoftheCPSF,butisitpartofthework?Otherwitnessesdocountthis
aspartoftheCPSF;Fernández-OrdóñezstatesthatinthismanuscripttheCPSFstarts
at the hand change in div 1046,97and therefore not at the start of the text about
Fernando,atdiv1040.SincetheredoesappeartobeachangeinthetextofE2atdiv
95E2andDdonotcontainchapternumberswithintheirrubrics,andtherearenorubricsinthissectionofSs.96 Transcription of part of the rubric of Div 1040, F f.200v (image 429 of digitised manuscript)(Biblioteca universitaria de Salamanca, 2628, images:<https://gredos.usal.es/jspui/handle/10366/131927> [accessed11/02/2018]). It is not possible toinclude an image of themanuscript here as the Creative Commons licence according towhich themanuscriptimagesareprovidedbytheBibliotecauniversitariadeSalamancastatethatnoderivativesarepermitted.97Fernández-Ordóñez,‘Latransmisióntextual’,p.243
236
1040,however,giventhatthegapsweseeinthesectionaboutEnriquearenotpresent
inthematerialaboutFernando,wecanassumethattheconceptofasectionspecifically
aboutFernandoexistedin1289,althoughthiswasnotquitetheconceptoftheCPSF
thatweseebythetimeoftheotherwitnesses.Becauseofthis,aswellasforpractical
reasons,giventhatE2isthebasetextofthisedition,Ihaveincludedintheeditionall
ofthematerialfromdiv1040onwardsinallfivewitnesses.Thisissuegoestothevery
heart of our understanding ofwhat constitutes aworkwithinmedieval textuality:
whetheraworkisself-defining,orifthewayinwhichitischangedovertimeaffects
whatweasmodernreadersconsidertobeincludedinagivenworkornot.Asisoften
thecasewithediting,theeditor’staskhereistobalancetheoreticalimplicationswith
practicalities,allwithintheever-presentconfinesoftimeandmoney.
3.3Edition(s)anddiscussion
Iwillnowpresentanddiscusstheversionsof thedigitalCPSF.This isavailable for
consultationby thereaderonline,98andwas compiledbyCatherineSmith from the
dataIproduced.
98PollyDuxfield,(ed.)AdigitaleditionoftheCrónicaParticulardeSanFernando,(Birmingham,UniversityofBirmingham,2018)<estoria.bham.ac.uk/CPSF>[accessed23/06/2018]
237
3.3.0.1Manuscriptsusedtocreatetheedition
IwillfirstoutlinethenotesImadewhentranscribing(orproofingthetranscriptions
of) themanuscriptsused to create thedigitalCPSF.Thesearenot intended tobea
replacement for full studies of the manuscripts, codicological, palaeographical or
otherwise,butmerelyasaninitialdescriptionofthefivemanuscriptsforthepurposes
ofusingthemtomakeadigitaledition.
E2:EstoriadeEspanna(EscorialX-i-4)
Catalán has shown that E2 is a compositemanuscript compiled between 1321 and
1344,99 and Fernández-Ordóñez has shown that this was probably carried out by
FernánSánchezdeValladolid,usingmaterial fromvariouspoints in time, including
both Alfonsine and post-Alfonsine material. 100 E2 comprises 359 folios on
parchment.101Theimagesforthismanuscriptareclearandhighquality,andshowthat
themanuscripthasbeenwellpreserved.However,theyarenotfreelyavailableforuse
bythepublic,norcantheybereproducedorlinkedtobydigitaleditionsatthistime,
demonstratinghownotalldigitaleditionscaninclude,orevenlinkto,theimagesof
some manuscripts. Accurate transcriptions are of even more importance in these
cases, as users are unable to check themanuscript for themselves. The text of the
document appears in black ink,with rubrics in red, and initial capitals illuminated
alternatelyinredandblue.ThetextwhichcorrespondstotheCPSFinF,Ss,SandD
99Catalán,DeAlfonsoXalCondedeBarcelos,pp.73-75100Fernández-Ordóñez,‘Latransmisióntextual’,p.243101InésFernández-Ordóñez,‘EstoriadeEspaña’,inCarlosAlvarandJoséManuelLucíaMegías(eds.),DiccionarioFilológicodeLiteraturaMedievalEspañola.Textosytransmisión.(Madrid:Castalia,2002),pp.54-80,p.62
238
startsinE2onfolio316v,inathirteenth-centuryhand.Folios316vto320varepartof
theVersiónamplificada,meaningthatthefirstfivefoliosofwhatwenowconsiderto
betheCrónicaarelatethirteenth-century.TheCPSFappearsattheendofthiscodex,
ending,asthemanuscriptdoes,onfolio359v.ThehandoftheCPSFafterfolio320v
dates to themid-fourteenth-century, and is likely to be the same as the hand that
insertedvariousfoliosintotherestofthecodex(insertedfoliosare18-22,80-81,200-
256).102ThesecondvolumeofthePCG isbasedonthiscodex,anditthetextofthis
manuscriptwhichistakenasthebasetextforthedigitalCPSF.Oneaspectofnoteisa
mistakeinE2,whereindiv1045,ab39,thescribewritesofFernando’swifeBeatriz,
butonthisparticularoccasion,callsherKatalina–itisnotpossibletotellfromjust
thisinformationifthisisapurelyscribalerror,oranerrorintheexemplarfromwhich
heiscopying,butthisabappearsinthreeothermanuscriptswithinthisedition:Ssand
SbothhavethenameBeatriz(orBeatris)here,Dmentionsonlythekingandnotthe
queenhere,andthisabdoesnotappearinF.
Ss:EstoriadeEspanna(CajadeAhorrosdeSalamanca,40)
Thisisafifteenth-centurycodexonpaperoftheEstoria.103TheCPSFappearsonfolios
279vto325rinclusive,whichiswherethecodexends.FromCatalán’swork,weknow
thatSsisawitnessfromtheVersióncríticaoftheEstoria(1282-1284),104butclearly
thesectionrelatingtotheCPSFmusthavecomefromalaterwitness,asweknowthe
CPSFcontainssomematerialwhichisnoolderthantheearlyfourteenthcentury.105
102Fernández-Ordóñez,‘Latransmisióntextual’,p.243103Fernández-OrdóñezinAlvarandLucíaMegíasp.68104CatalánDelasilvatextual,p.180-181105FernándezGallardo,247
239
Theimagesforthismanuscriptareavailablewithinthepresentdigitaledition,andare
bothclearandincolour.Themaintextappearsinblackink,andtherearenorubrics
withinthissectionofSs,althoughspacehasbeen left for them.Fernández-Ordóñez
notesinAlvarandLucía’sDiccionariothatthroughoutSs,asecondhandsporadically
fillsinrubricsinred,althoughmanyofthesearemissing,asaretheinitialcapitals.106
Smallcapitalstotheleft-handsideofthespacesleftforthelargeinitialsshowtheletter
tobeinserted.
F: Estoria de Espanna, cuarta parte (Biblioteca universitaria de Salamanca,
2628)(olimII-429BibliotecadePalacioRealdeMadrid)
TheCPSFappearsattheendofthecodex,infolios200vto212vinclusive,andcanbe
seen in high quality, colour digital images.107These have not been included inmy
edition,asaccordingtothelicenceunderwhichtheyarepresentedbytheBiblioteca
universitaria de Salamanca, no derivatives may be distributed, and I believe this
editionwouldbeconsideredaderivative.108ThetextoftheCPSFinthismanuscriptis
muchshorterthanthatoftheotherwitnesses,andisonlypresentuptodiv1058.The
textalsoendsabruptly,mid-sentence.Asmentionedabove,thisislikelytohavebeen
theendofwhatisnowdiv1060.
106Fernández-OrdóñezinAlvarandLucíaMegíasp.68107Imagesareavailableat:https://gredos.usal.es/jspui/handle/10366/131927[accessed11/02/2018].Therelevantimagesarenumbers429to447.108CreativeCommonslicenceavailableathttps://gredos.usal.es/jspui/handle/10366/131927andcheckedon24/06/2018.
240
In parts, thismanuscript also differs significantly from the base text. Summarising
Catalán’sconclusions,109Fernández-OrdóñezstatesthatthisisbecauseFwascopied
fromamore conciseversionof theEstoria than thissectionofE2was,110andde la
Campaexplainsthatofthefivemanuscriptsusedinthisedition(whichcoincidewith
thefivehedescribesinAlvarandLucía’sDiccionario),Fprovidesuswiththetextthat
isclosesttoDerebus.111Forthisreason,whatisthereinFisoftenverysimilartowhat
appears inE2,but therearesectionsoftext thatappear in theother fourwitnesses
usedforthiseditionwhichdonotappearinF.Itisimportanttorecognisethatthese
sections are not missing from F – they were later additions to chronicle, which
accounts for their inclusion in the other witnesses. They do not appear in F, not
becausematerial is suppressedordue to thepresenceof lacunae,butbecause this
representsanearlierstageofthetransmissionofthistext.
Differences from E2 are particularly noticeable in div 1057, which is the longest
chapterofthechronicle,andtheonethatIhavetranslatedasanexemplar.Forthis
reason,onapracticallevel,itwasdifficulttogivesomesectionsofFcollatabledivand
abnumbers,meaningsomesectionsofFarenotcollatablewiththebasetextandthe
witnesseswhich are closer to the base text than this one is. This manuscript has
undergonedamage,includingripsandwaterdamage,andtheouteredgesofmanyof
the pages are damaged. There is also a sectionwhere three folios have been lost,
evidencedbythefolionumberingjumpingfrom204vto208r.Thetextthatremains,
however,isclear,withthemainsectionsinblackinkandtherubricsinred.Therubrics
109Catalán,DeAlfonsoXalCondedeBarcelos,pp.73-75110Fernández-Ordóñez,‘Latransmisióntextual’,p.229111DelaCampainAlvarandLuçiaMegías,p.359
241
appeartobeinthesamehandasthatofthemaintext.112Therubricsinthissectionof
Fcontaintwosetsofnumbering:thesecondofwhichrelatesolelytotheCPSF,starting
atdiv1040.Ofnoteisthattheonlybreakinconsecutivenumberingfrom1(div1040)
to6 (div1045) is thatdiv1042 is labelled chapter4,whenaccording to theother
chaptersitshouldbechapter3.Thisisanerror,althoughfromthisevidenceonlywe
cannot concludewhether this is scribal or is an error in the exemplar. Rubrics for
chapters7to9inclusivearemissing,coincidingwithasetoflostfolios,noticeablealso
inagapinthefolionumbering.
D:CrónicadeSantoReydonFernando(BibliotecaNacional,Madrid,10273)
This is a fifteenth-century codex on paper. The CPSF appears in folios 1r to 45r
inclusive,whichistheendofthemanuscript.Thereisonecolumnoftextperpage,and
theimagesarehighquality,incolour,andareavailabletothepublic.113Thetextisin
black,withpilcrowsandrubricsinred,whichappeartobeinthesamehand.Thescribe
hasfaintlymarkedwherethepilcrowsshouldbe,althoughnotallhavebeenfilledin,
and there are also gaps for unexecuted initial capitals. The text of D is highly
abbreviated, and is very similar in content to that of E2. There are a couple of
noteworthypoints:therubricofdiv1110ismissing,andinsteadcontainstherubric
ofdiv1113.Therubricfor1113alsoappearsatthetopofdiv1113,meaningthesame
rubricappearstwice,onceerroneously.Also,infolio36rwherethereistextmissing
112AdetailedcomparisonbetweenE2andFcanbefoundinCatalán,DeAlfonsoXalCondedeBarcelos,andasummarycanbefoundinDelaCampainAlvarandLucíaMegías,pp.359-360.Briefly,theseincludeerrorsonthepartoftheauthoroftheCrónica,forexampleinconfusingtwoAlfonsos–thebrotherofFernandoIII,andthesonofFernandoIII;errorsonthepartofthescribeinmiscopyingrubrics;andnotesaboutexactlywhatcontentisincludedinF,comparedwithE2.113Imagesareavailableat:http://bdh-rd.bne.es/viewer.vm?id=0000042651&page=1(checked29/08/2017)
242
intheexemplarfromwhichthescribeiscopying,andhemakesaspecificreferenceto
this:
Figure3:ExcerptfromD,BibliotecaNacional10273,f.36r114
Aqⁱçesaestaestoriaporestarrrotavnafojadeloriginal⁊ deuengocoseguidameteaestaotraestoriacuyocapitulo⁊comjeçofaltaotrosieneloriginal⁊ tº
GómezRedondopointsoutthatthisshowsusboththattherewasan‘original’version
oftheCPSF,andthatDthereforecannotbethisoriginal.115
S:Crónicadetresreyes(BibliotecaNacional,Madrid,9233)
This isa fifteenth-centurycodexonpaperof126folios,comprisingtwoworks: the
CPSF (ff. 1r-37v) and theCrónicas de Alfonso X y Sancho IV (ff. 38r-126r).116High-
quality,colourimagesofthemanuscriptareavailablefortothepubliconthewebsite
oftheBibliotecaNacional.117Thetextappearsinblackintwocolumns.Rubricsarein
red, inadifferenthandtothatof themaintext.Spaceshavebeen left for initialsof
various sizes, although theseareunexecuted. Themanuscripthasundergone some
damage – some pages are cut, some have a hairline fold running through them,
114ThisimageisreproducedaccordingtothedetailsoftheCreativeCommonslicenceunderwhichthemanuscriptispresentedtothepublic.Thelicenceisavailableat:http://www.bne.es/en/Servicios/ReproduccionDocumentos/UsoReproducciones/,andwascheckedon09/07/2018.115GómezRedondo,Historiadelaprosamedievalcastellana,p.1243116DelaCampainAlvarandLucía,p.361117Imagesareavailableat:http://bdh-rd.bne.es/viewer.vm?id=0000096079&page=1[accessed11/02/2018].TheyaresubjecttothesameCreativeCommonslicenceasD(above)andforthisreasonimagesofbothDandScanbeincludedinmyedition,astheeditionwillclearlycitetheBNE,andtheimagesarenotbeingusedforcommercialgain.
243
distorting the flowof the text, and there areholes in someof thepages.Thereare
variousfoliosleftblankwithinthetextoftheCPSF–sincethescribehasleftspacefor
textwhichhasnotbeencopied,wecanassumethat this isbecausehewascopying
from an exemplar with lacunae, but where he was aware of the existence of the
lacunae:folios35rto36vinclusiveareblank,andthetextjumpsfromdiv1139ab100,
leavingawordpartiallycompleted,todiv1143ab1400.Whentranscribing,Inoted
thattextitselfdoesnotcontainalargenumberofdifferencesfromthebasetext(E2),
although the rubrics are significantly different from those of E2. Aspectsworthyof
minornotearethatinS,therubricofchapter12appearsinred,asdoalloftheother
rubrics,but thistextdoesnotcorrespondtoE2,wherethecorrespondingsection is
withinthemaintextofdiv1050,ab1000.Also,therearetwoerrorsinthenumbering:
thechapterthatshouldbechapter50(div1088)islabelledas60(div1087is49,div
1089is51,anddiv1098is60),andtwochaptersarelabelled85(divs1123and1124)
althoughthereisnobreakordisruptioninthenumberingfromchapter73(div1111)
tochapter100(div1139)tosuggestthatachapterhasbeenmisnumbered.
3.3.1Version1:Transcriptions–preparationandpresentation
Thetranscriptionstageofpreparingadigitaleditionisthelongestandmostlabour-
intensive.Thedecisionstakenatthetranscriptionstageastowhattotagandwhatnot
totagcaneitherenableorlimittheworkofscholarswhochoosetousethedatacreated
at the transcriptionstage.For these reasons, the importanceof transcriptionwhen
preparingadigitaleditioncannotbeoverstated.Thetranscriptionsarepresentedin
244
thedigitaleditioninthreeways:i)rawtranscriptions(notstrictlyapresentation,but
aversionofthetranscriptions,availablefordownloadthroughaCreativeCommons
agreement); ii)adiplomatic transcription; iii)anexpandedtranscription.Theseare
describedbelow.
3.3.1.1Transcribersandwitnesses
Thetranscriptionsoftwoofthewitnessesusedtocreatethisdigitaledition(E2andSs)
were originally prepared as part of theEstoriaDigital.118The transcriptions of the
CPSF(henceforthmeaningdiv1040onwards)inE2werepreparedbetweenMarchand
December 2015. 119 The transcriptions of the corresponding section of Ss were
prepared during March 2016. 120 The other three witnesses for the digital CPSF,
manuscriptFoftheEstoria,andmanuscriptsDandS,donotformpartoftheEstoria
Digital,andwerethereforetranscribedsolelyforthisedition,betweenOctober2017
andMarch2018.121ThewitnessinmanuscriptAoftheEstoriawasnotusedforthis
edition, since it is inGalician-Portuguese,norwere thewitnessesof theCrónicade
veintereyes.BecauseofaCreativeCommonslicence,thetranscriptionsfortheCPSF
118Ward,EstoriadeEspannaDigitalv.1.0;Ascanbeexpected,sincethissectionofmythesisistoalargeextentreliantontheaccuracyofthesetranscriptions,Ihave,ofcourse,checkedthetranscriptionsmyselfbeforeusingthemasabasisfortheotherversionsofthisdigitaleditionoftheCPSF.119ThetranscribersforthissectionofE2wereFionaMaguire(maintranscriberforthissection)andChristianKusi-Obodum(moderatorofthissection).Asgeneraleditor,AengusWardmadevariouscorrectionstothemoderatedtranscriptions.120ThemaintranscriberforthissectionwasFionaMaguire.ThetranscriptionsforthissectionofSswerelatercheckedbyEnriqueJerezandminorchangesweremade.121Iwastheonlytranscriberofthesethreemanuscripts.AengusWardkindlyprovidedasecondsetofeyesfortranscriptionqueries.
245
are available to users of the digital edition for study or inspection, or even for
downloadshoulduserschoosetomakeuseofthisdataforstudiesnotpossiblewithin
thecurrentdigitaledition,providingusersclearlycitethedigitalCPSFanddonotuse
thisdataforcommercialpurposes.Whereavailable,thisisabenefittousersofdigital
editionsthatisnotopentousersofprinteditions,butasIhavementionedpreviously,
scholarssuchasParkerhaveremarkedthatthisdoesaddpressuretotheroleofdigital
editor,sinceuserscanmuchmoreeasilyscrutiniseeditorialdecisions.122
3.3.1.2Crowdsourcing
In section 1.2.8.4 I concluded that crowdsourcing could be beneficial to all digital
editingprojectsintermsofincreaseduser-engagementwiththetext,andinallowing
awideraudiencetoaccessthetext,justatanearlierstageofthedevelopmentofthe
editionthanthatwhichispublished.Thatsaid,theeditormustweighupthebenefits
of this with the time and financial costs involved in developing the infrastructure
requiredforcrowdsourcing.Giventhatthisisasmallprojectintermsofthelengthof
transcriptionsandof theCPSF itself,andthattwoof the fivewitnesseshadalready
beentranscribedfortheEstoriaDigital,Ididnotusecrowdsourcingforthisproject,
since this was likely to have taken longer than simply transcribing the witnesses
myself,andsincepublicengagementwasnotaprimaryaimofthisedition.
122Parker,‘ThroughaScreenDarkly’,395-411
246
3.3.1.3Basetext
TherawtranscriptionsfortheEstoriaDigital,andbyextensionthedigitalCPSF,were
preparedbyeditingabasetext.Thiswascreatedusingtheexistingtranscriptionsof
E2bytheHSMS,123whosetagswereremovedtogiveabaretext.Itisnottheprimary
purposeofthisthesistoarguethevalidityornotofusingabasetextfortheEstoria
Digital, sincethis thesis isbasedonthedigitalCPSFandnot theEstoriaDigital,but
giventhatmyeditionislinkedcloselytothelatter,andasIhaveaboveremarkedon
Tanselle’scommentsregardingtheuseofbasetextsandcopytexts,itisworthbriefly
discussingtheuseofabasetextforthiscasestudy.
TheEstoriaDigitalusesabasetextforpracticalandtheoreticalreasons.124Emending
abasetextratherthantranscribingfromscratchcangreatlyreducethetimetakento
transcribeawitness,whichisobviouslybeneficialwhentimeandresourcesarefinite
(astheyalwaysare,whenpreparingadigitaledition).125Withregardtoscholarswho
arguethatabasetextcanunfairlyhierarchiseonewitnessaboveothers,theEstoriais
notanexampleofradiatingtexts:asignificantsectionofE1isAlfonsine,whichnoother
witnessesof theEstoriaare,andthereforehasthe ‘uniquehistoricalstatus’ that, in
examples of radiating texts, Tanselle warns editors to beware of creating. 126
Furthermore,between them,E1andE2provide the fullestpossiblebase textof the
123FranciscoGagoJover(ed.),‘EstoriadeEspannaII’,ProseWorksofAlfonsoXelSabio,DigitalLibraryofOldSpanishTexts,HispanicSeminaryofMedievalStudies,http://www.hispanicseminary.org/t&c/ac/index-en.htm,[accessed11/01/2017]124MorecanbereadabouttheuseofabasetextfortheEDITprojecthere:Methodology–Basetext,numberingsystemandtextualdivision,http://estoria.bham.ac.uk/blog/?page_id=923#Transcriptions,[accessed10/10/2017]125Robinson,‘TowardsaTheoryofDigitalEditions’,106126Tanselle,‘EditingWithoutaCopy-Text’,18
247
Estoria. Although the digital CPSF does not blindly follow every single part of the
Estoria Digital, I have continued to use E2 as a base text. Using a base text does
hierarchiseonewitnessovertheothers– thisisan inescapabletruthwithindigital
editing,andtheargumentoftheuniquehistoricalstatusasanAlfonsinewitnesscannot
applytotheCPSF,which,aswehaveseen,islater.Addedtothisisthecomplication
that the section between divs 1040 and 1045 in E2 is Sanchine, and the rest is
fourteenth-century.However, the inclusion ofdivs 1040 onwards in the composite
codexofE2,aswellas,bynaturalextension,inthePCG,meansthatthiswitnesshas
alreadybeenhierarchisedinhistorybyreception.Ididnotfeelthatchangingsucha
fundamentalpartofthetranscriptionprocesswouldbesufficientlybeneficialtomy
editionas towarrantdoingso,northatusingE2asabasetextwasnegativeto the
integrityorusabilityoftheedition.
3.3.1.4TranscriptionGuidelines
HavingbeenstrippedofHSMStags,thebasetextwasthenpreparedforlatercollation
using a series of TEI5-compliant XML textualdivision tags: the text is divided into
divisions(‘divs’)which,ingeneral,followtheseparationofthetextintochaptersinthe
manuscriptsofE;eachdivwasthendividedfurtherintoanonymousblocks(or‘abs’)
whichgenerally followsemanticdivisions.Generally, it canbe said thatoneab is a
sentence,althoughthisdoesnotreflectthecomplexityofsomeofthedivisionofthe
248
text.127During transcription,ourownTEI5-compliantXML,128was inserted into the
basetext, accordingtothenormsofourTranscriptionGuidelines.Theseguidelines
wereoriginallypreparedbyBárbaraBordalejoandwereeditedasappropriateduring
the course of the transcription stage of the project, aboutwhichmore can be read
later.129Thetranscriptions for theEstoriaDigital (so for thepurposesof thedigital
CPSF, E2 and Ss)were initially carried out using the online transcription platform
TextualCommunities,developedbyPeterRobinson.130WithintheeditionoftheEstoria
thesetranscriptionswillsoonbeavailablefordownload.Similarly,withinthedigital
CPSF,userscandownloadtherawtranscriptions,accordingtotheCreativeCommons
licence underwhich they are presented.131The other threewitnesses for theCPSF
werenotpreparedusingTextualCommunities,butweretranscribedusingthesame
transcription norms as the Estoria transcriptions, using the same base text. The
transcriptionshaveahighleveloftagging,withasignificantlevelofdetailincluded:132
127Ward,‘TheEstoriadeEspannaDigital:collatingmedievalprose’,16providesmuchmoredetailabouttheallocationofdivandabnumberstothebasetext,payingparticularlyregardtohowtheserelatetothechaptersandsentencesoftheAlfonsinetext.Hegivesmoredetailthanisrequiredforthepresentthesis,soIwillnotreproducehisworkhere,butreaderswishingformoredetailcanfinditthere.128Here,‘our’referstotheEstoriadeEspannaDigitalprojectteam.129Thefinalnormscanbeviewedat:‘TranscriptionGuidelines’,http://www.textualcommunities.usask.ca/web/estoria-de-espanna/wiki/-/wiki/Main/Transcription+Guidelines[accessed11/01/2017];MoreinformationabouthowtheGuidelineswerepreparedandtheneditedduringthetranscriptionstageoftheprojectcanbefoundinDuxfield,‘ThePracticalities’.130‘TextualCommunities’,http://www.textualcommunities.usask.ca/web/textual-community/home,[accessed11/01/2017]131ThisisaCreativeCommons4.0AttributionNon-commercialShare-Alikelicence.TheabilityforotheruserstoaccessthisdatafortheirownusethroughaCreativeCommonsShare-AlikeAttributionlicenceisastipulationforallthosewhomakeuseofTextualCommunities.SeeRobinson,‘SomePrinciples’p.15.132Ward,‘TheEstoriadeEspannaDigital:collatingmedievalprose’,10Someprojectswhicheditmedievalprosedonotprovidesuchalevelofdetail.TheOnlineFroissart,forexample,focusedontranscribingmoremanuscriptsbutinlessdetail:‘Thetranscriptionsdonotestablishaperfectversionofthetext,nordotheygointotheminutedetailsofindividualwitnesscharacteristicssuchasabbreviationsorwordseparation.’See‘EditorialProject’,OnlineFroissart,https://www.dhi.ac.uk/onlinefroissart/apparatus.jsp?type=context&context=editorial_policy
249
writingontheEstoriaproject,editorWardstatesthat ‘thedetailedtranscriptions…
containasaccuratearepresentationoforiginalorthographyandtextualstructureas
were deemed possible’. 133 This contrasts with the much less detailed OFP
transcriptions, privileging instead the quantity ofmanuscripts transcribed. For the
purposeoftheOFP,tobringFroissart’sChroniquestoaswideanaudienceaspossible,
this privileging is perfectly valid. It would not, however, fulfil the objective of the
EstoriaDigital,ofwhichoneoftheaimsistofurtherscholarlyknowledgeoftheplace
oftheEstoria,particularlywhenthescholarsmostlikelytoaccessthiseditionwould
expect a more style of detailed transcription. This brings us back to my central
argumentthataneditorshouldtakeintoaccounttherequirementsandexpectations
ofhisintendedaudience,andshouldusethistoinformhiseditorialdecisions.
OnemajorbenefitofusingTextualCommunitiesforthetranscriptionsofE2andSs,is
that Textual Communities helps alleviate the XML-wide issue of overlapping
hierarchies,mentionedabove.Robinsonexplainsthisas‘theproblemofencodingtexts
whichhavebothadocumenthierarchy(pages,columns, lines)andwhatwecallan
entity hierarchy (book, chapter, verse).’ 134 Textual Communities can cope with
overlappinghierarchies,thankstoataggingsystemwhichrecognisesthatfragments
oftextcanbelinkedoverdocumentaryboundaries,suchasifonerubricissplitovera
foliobreak.135
[accessed01/03/2018]Asalways,wereturntoRobinson’sreminderthataseditorsourresourcesarefiniteandwemustchoosewhereweplaceourfocus.133Ward,‘TheEstoriadeEspannaDigital:collatingmedievalprose’,21134PeterRobinson,‘HowTCWorks:TextualCommunitiesandOverlappingHierarchies’,TextualCommunities,(n.d.)http://www.textualcommunities.usask.ca/web/textual-community/wiki/-/wiki/Main/How+TC+Works[accessed20/03/2018]135ThistaggingsystemisattributedtoXiaohanZhang.
250
Asabove,regardingtheuseofabasetextandfollowingtheeditorialdecisionsofthe
Estoria project, for theCPSF I have also followed theEstoriaproject, inusing their
transcription norms. This is because the digitalCPSFwill form a part of thewider
Estoria Digital, so I did not want there to be inconsistencies in the transcriptions
betweenthetwoprojects.SpeakingasboththeeditoroftheEstoriaDigitalandthe
supervisor of the present thesis, Aengus Ward made it clear that there could be
differences in thetranscriptionnormsbetweenthetwoprojectsandthat Iwasnot
boundtostickwiththeeditorialdecisionsoftheEstoriaDigital.However,practically,
giventhat twoof the fivemanuscriptsof thedigitalCPSF formapartof theEstoria
Digital,tochangethetranscriptionnormsfortheCPSFwouldhavecausedasignificant
amountofworkinre-transcribingoreditingthetranscriptionsofE2andSs.Ifthisis
takingplaceasaconsciouseditorialdecision,sucha time investmentcouldbe fully
justified,butwherechangeswouldbemadepurelyforthesakeofcreatingdifference
between two partially-related projects, I felt the benefit would be negligible.
Furthermore,IfelttherewasanadvantagetoconsistencywiththeextendedEstoria
Digitalfortheuseroftheedition.Ithereforemadetheconsciousdecisiontousethe
Estorianormswhentranscribing.
Ihave spoken inmoredepthabout theEstoriaDigital, andbyextension thedigital
CPSF, guidelines in an article, The Practicalities of Collaboratively Digitally Editing
Medieval Prose. 136 As touched on above, and as I discuss in this article, Bárbara
136PollyDuxfield,‘ThePracticalitiesofCollaborativelyDigitallyEditingMedievalProse:TheEstoriadeEspannaDigitalProjectasaCaseStudy’,DigitalPhilology7.1(Spring2018),74-92.Thispaperwasfirstpresentedatthe4thAnnualColloquiumoftheEstoriadeEspannaDigitalProject(UniversityofBirmingham,UK,13-15thDecember2016).Therestofthissubsectionislargelyareworkingofthisarticle.
251
Bordalejo,asseniorEstoriaresearchfellow,wastheoriginalauthoroftheguidelines.
TheseareTEI5-compliantXMLtagsforseveralaspectsofthetext,includingidentifying
blocksoftextforelectroniccollation,aspectsofmise-en-page,andabbreviationsand
expansions.Theywereproducedintheknowledgethatthetranscriptionswouldbe‘a
resourceinthemselvesbutalsothattheywouldbetherawmaterialforcollation,’137
andthiswastakenintoconsiderationwhentheywerecreatedandlaterrevised.Whilst
transcribingtheEstoria,issuesandqueriesarosenaturally,werediscussedamongst
the team, and some of the transcription norms evolved andwere emended in the
guidelines.Itissimplynotpracticaltoexpectthatalltranscriptioneventualitiescanbe
foreseenandcateredforwithintheguidelinesbeforetranscriptiontakesplace.Editing
theguidelineswaspossiblebecausetheyhadbeenproducedasawiki,asitwasalways
expectedthattheguidelineswouldbeupdatedandemendedduringthetranscription
process.Whilstcrowdsourcerscouldhaveeditedthewiki,inpracticeonlymembersof
themain transcription teamdid so, and onlywhen a consensus had been reached
withinateamdiscussion.Followingsuchtalks,toavoidconfusionandinconsistencies,
any changes were communicated amongst team members. That said, we avoided
making too many amendments to the guidelines, since this necessitated editing
already-completedtranscriptions,duplicatingwork,soweonlychangedtheguidelines
when strictly necessary. That is, when coming across a query for the first time:
anythingnotcoveredintheoriginalguidelineswasraisedinteammeetings,andthe
guidelineswereamended,whereappropriate.
137Ward,‘TheEstoriadeEspannaDigital:collatingmedievalprose’,9
252
Forexample,inthefirstinstancetherewasnothingintheguidelinesaboutexpansions
when the unabbreviated spelling had been subject to orthographic change. To
illustrate,we can return tomuger/mugier,which, as touchedon above, sometimes
appeared within the manuscript as muḡ. It was not immediately clear from the
guidelines how this word should be expanded within the abbreviation tag, but
followingdiscussionduringaprojectmeetingwedecidedtofollowtheususscribendi
ofthemanuscript,andtheguidelineswereeditedtoreflectthis.Ourreasoninghere
was thatwithinanygivenmanuscript thewordwouldappearaseithermugerand
muger,ormugierandmugier,unlessthereisinconsistencyinthemanuscriptabout
theunabbreviatedformoftheword.138Insuchcaseswemadeanindividualdecision
foreachquery,by countingwhichwas themore commonunabbreviated form,and
expandingtothat.Iwillreturntothispointbelow.
The Estoria, and therefore the CPSF, transcriptions are not full palaeographic
transcriptions–theydonotaimtoreplicatethepalaeographywithinthemanuscript
images. No electronic transcription could ever hope to fully represent the
palaeographywithinamanuscriptimageinallitsintricacy,andtodosowouldbein
vain,giventhat(withtheexceptionofE2),userscanaccessthemanuscriptimages,so
itisunlikelythatauserwhoishighlyinterestedinthepeculiaritiesofamanuscript
andthepalaeographycontainedwithinitwouldchoosetoconsultatranscriptionto
dothiswhenhigh-qualitycolourdigitalimagesareavailable.Thetranscriptionsare
semi-diplomatic, respecting the word-spacing and punctuation of the text in the
138Iuseitalicsheretohighlighttheexpandedletters,whichdiffersfromthetechniqueusedinboththeEstoriaDigitalandthedigitalCPSF,whichuseafontcolourtoshowtheexpansion.
253
manuscriptimage,andreproducingabbreviationmarksascloselyaspossibletohow
theyappearintheimage.139Similarly,thetranscriptionsdonotcorrectoremendthe
textwherethereareapparent‘errors’orsupplymissingtextotherthanwhenthereis
absolutelynodoubtaboutwhatthemissingtextwouldhavebeen(inpracticethisis
hardlyever, and in factnomissing text is supplied in the five transcriptionsof the
digitalCPSF).Abbreviationsareencodedsothatausercantogglebetweenviewingthe
text with abbreviation marks, without expansions, and viewing the text with
expansionsmarkedingrey(forblackinkinthemanuscriptimage)orinlightred(for
redink).Inprinteditions,andinearlierelectroniceditions,editorswouldrepresent
expansions using italics. Print editors have little in the way of possibilities of
representing editorial intervention, other than italics, bold and underline, without
introducing codes which are both highly complex and difficult to read;140 we can
rememberhereMcGann’scriticismofGablerforhiscomplicatedcodeinhiseditionof
Ulysses.141Theconventionamongstprinteditorsistouseitalics.Asdiscussedabove,
Spencehasqueriedthereasonwhydigitaleditorshave,todate,feltcompelledtostick
withtheconventionofhighlightingeditorialinterventionusingitalics–hasitsimply
notoccurredtothemtobreakfromthisconvention?Spencearguesthatdigitaleditors
haveamuchwidertoolboxavailabletothemforsuchcircumstances,andifaneditor
uses techniques other than italics for everything, and particularly different
highlighting techniques for different purposes, this can be differentiated both by
139Ward,‘TheEstoriadeEspannaDigital:collatingmedievalprose’,12140Itistechnicallypossiblethataprinteditorcouldusecolourink,althoughthiswouldbeprohibitivelyexpensive,orothertechniquessuchasfontchanges,superscript,subscript,footnoting,althoughthiswouldmaketheeditionextremelydifficulttoread,soisavoided.Thetendencyisfortheconventionofusingitalics.141McGann,‘“Ulysses”asaPostmodernText’,291
254
humansandmachines.142Followingsuchreasoning,wheneditingtheEstoria,Ward
hasbrokenfromtheitalics-for-everythingconvention,andasmyeditionwilllaterbe
linked with his, since his argument for doing so is convincing, and to ensure
consistencyfortheuser,Ihavefollowedsuit.
Thetexthasbeendividedintodivsandabs,or(loosely,)chaptersandsentences,which
canbeusedfornavigationaroundtheedition,tofindcorrespondingsectionsbetween
witnesses,andforelectroniccollation.FollowingtheEstoriaDigital,thevisualisation
ofthenumberinginthedigitalCPSFhasbeendoneinsuchawayastominimiseany
‘noise’tothereader.Thatis,theabnumbersareseeninfadedgrey,inorderthatthey
shouldnotdisrupttheflowofreading.Thisreflectsthegeneralpresentationofallof
theversionswithinthisedition,wheretheguidingprinciplewastodisplaythetextin
themostreader-friendlywaypossible,whilstmaintainingtheintegrityofthetext.To
thisend,themaintextisprovidedinblackandrubricsareinred.
AbbreviationsareexpandedinboththeEstoriaDigitalandthedigitalCPSFaccording
to the usus scribendi of the particular manuscript. This decision enables the
transcriptions to be used to observe orthographic change, taking into account the
external (socio-)linguistic contextduringwhich the chronicleswerewritten, and in
particularthesignificanceoftheAlfonsineoeuvreinthisregard.Ifwehadregularised
across all of the manuscripts, such aspects would have been lost, rendering the
transcriptions less useful to scholars and less interesting for both general and
142Spence,‘Sieteretos’,156
255
specialist readers. Orthographic change could still be researched using the raw
transcriptions, and it isunlikely thatwhenstudyingorthographic changea linguist
would use expanded transcriptions, but others may also be interested to view
linguistic changes such as this whilst using the expanded transcriptions without
enteringintosuchdetailedstudy.143TheimplicationofthisfortheEstoriaDigitalwas
that expansion tagshad to be editable, sowecould not use aWYSIWYG systemof
inputtingXMLtagsintotranscriptionsusingshortcutbuttons,asothertranscription
projectsdo,suchasTranscribeBentham.Theirshortcuttoolbarhelpsminimisetagging
errors and widens the appeal of the project to volunteerswhomay find full XML
taggingdaunting.144Forus,however,aWSYIWYGsystemwasimpractical,giventhat
transcribers,bothvolunteerandin-house,hadtoeditabbreviation-expansiontagsto
representtheususscribendiofthatparticularmanuscript,includingboththespecific
placementoftheabbreviationmark,whichwasnotfixedinthesemanuscripts,andin
the expansion, which also differed. This had affected both our recruitment and
retentionofcrowdsourcersandthetrainingwehadtoprovidethemwith,asthetask
of transcription was more complicated than it would have been if we were
regularising. We felt this was a necessary step, however, taking into account the
contextandsignificanceofthetexts,andtheperceivedeventualusageoftheedition.145
143MembersoftheEDITteamhavediscussedthisissuepreviously:Ward,‘Editingthe“EstoriadeEspanna”’,199;AengusWard,‘Muger/Mugier?’EstoriadeEspannaDigitalProjectblog,blogdated17/01/2014,http://estoria.bham.ac.uk/blog/?p=201[accessed16/10/2016];PollyDuxfield,ChristianKusi-ObodumandMarinePoirier,‘Cuestionesdeetiquetación’(1stAnnualEDITColloquium)(UniversityofBirmingham,10-11April2014)144Moyle,TonraandWallace,352-353145ThereadermaybeinterestedtonotethatthenewphaseoftheEstoriaDigital,basedmoreheavilyoncrowdsourcedtranscriptionsthanphaseone,andcurrentlyindevelopment,willmakeuseofaWYSIWYGtaggingsystemforvolunteers.Thiswillhaveimplicationsonthemethodology,inthatonlyonemanuscriptwillbecrowdsourcedatatime,butshouldwidentheappealofvolunteering,witheffectsontherecruitment,trainingandretentionofcrowdsourcingfortheproject,sincethecomplexityofthetaskwillbegreatlyreduced.
256
This is one area where I could potentially have moved away from the editorial
decisionsoftheEstoriaDigitalinmyownedition,butagainforconsistencybetween
thetwoprojects,Ididnotfeelinclinedtodoso.Also,sinceIwastheonlytranscriber
of the additional manuscripts, I was not affected by the implications of the extra
complicationofthetaskorofrecruitment,retentionandtrainingofothertranscribers.
Furthermore,Ididnotwantsuchlinguisticinformationtobelosttomanyusersinmy
edition,soItookthedecisiontofollowtheEstoriaDigitalhereoncemore.
TherearetwomaintypesoftagsusedinthetranscriptionsforboththeEstoriaDigital
and the digitalCPSF. These are those pertaining to the content of the text, that is
primarilyexpansionsofabbreviations,whichappearinopeningandclosingpairs,and
thoseofthemise-en-pageofthedocument.Thelatteroftentendtobeemptyelements,
suchascolumnbreaks–<cbn="a"/>–andlinebreaks.Therearethreelinebreaktags:
<lb/>forlineswhichendattheendofaword,withanewwordonthelinebelow;
<lbbreak=“no”/>forlineswhereawordwhichstartsononelineandfinishesonthe
onebelow,withnohyphen;and
<lbbreak=“no”rend=“hyphen”/>whereawordstartsonone line,endsontheone
below,andwherethereisahyphen.
Themajorityofthetagswithinthetranscriptionsare‘am/ex’abbreviationexpansion
tags. These are formed in the following way, with two opening and closing pairs:
<am>ABBREVIATIONMARK</am><ex>EXPANSION</ex>
257
Thetranscriberisabletoeditthetagtoshowascloselyaspossiblethepositionofthe
abbreviation mark, and also the expanded version of the word, according to the
guidelines,which,asdescribedabove,followtheususscribendiofthewordinextenso
wherever possible. For example, ‘fazer’, abbreviated to ‘faz’ would be tagged as:
faz<am></am><ex>er</ex>. The word in the diplomatic transcription within the
editionwoulddisplayas‘faz’andintheexpandedtranscriptionas‘fazer’.146
Anothercommontagisthe‘choice’tag,whichisusedwhentheabbreviationmarkdoes
notdirectlyprecedethesuppressedletters,sowheream/exwouldbeinappropriate.
Thisisaseriesofnestingtagswhichopenandcloseinturn.Anexampleofthistagin
usewouldbe‘sca’for‘sancta’:
<choice><abbr>sc<am></am>a</abbr><expan>s<ex>an</ex>c<ex>t</ex>a</expa
n></choice>
Thisdisplaysinthediplomatictranscriptionas‘sca’andintheexpandedtranscription
as‘sancta’.
Sometagsaresignificantlymorecomplex,andforthisreasonwereonlyveryseldom
used by crowdsourcers for theEstoria Digital. An example of thiswithin both the
EstoriaDigitalandthedigitalCPSFisthe‘apparatus’or‘app’tag.Thisisacomplextag
146Again,theitalicsherearereplacedwithadifferentfontcolourinthedigitaleditions–anoptionless-readilyavailabletomehereinthecontextofaprintedthesis.
258
where transcribers cannotemore thanoneversionof the text as it appears in the
manuscriptimage,forexamplesofemendations.Theapptagwasfirstdevelopedby
Bárbara Bordalejo for the Divine Comedy. 147 An example of its usage in the
transcriptionofE2isforthewordwhichappearsas‘acacabado’:
<app>
<rdgtype="lit">a<segrend="ud"><segtype="1"></seg>ca<seg
type="2"></seg></seg>cabado</rdg>
<rdgtype="orig">acacabado</rdg>
<rdgtype="mod">acabado</rdg>
</app>
The literal reading (rdg type=“lit”) is how the text looks in themanuscript image:
acacabado(thefirst‘ca’areunderdotted).
Theoriginal reading (rdg type=“orig”) ishowthe text lookedoriginally,beforeany
emendation:acacabado.
The modified reading (rdg type=“mod”) is how we as transcribers (and in this
particular case, editors, apointwhich Iwill addressbelow)believe theemendator,
whether thiswas the scribe or a later hand,wanted the text to be read: acabado.
The diplomatic transcription will display the literal reading, and the expanded
transcription will display the modified reading, highlighted in teal to show an
147BárbaraBordalejo,TheCommediaProjectEncodingSystem,(2013)https://www.academia.edu/4131782/The_Commedia_Project_Encoding_System(accessed04/06/2018)
!
!BcE!
%*%+/')<,+!6'3!)'H%+!&7'5%I!M)!<3!=,()6!+,)<+1!6%(%!)6')!)6%!5,77')<,+!<3!"'3%/!,+!)6%!
*,/<-<%/!(%'/<+13!,-!'+#!'&&!)'13!=<)6<+!)6%!"'3%!)%G)I!!
!
F6%!-<12(%!"%7,=!36,=3!)6%!&(%3%+)')<,+!,-!)6%!)('+35(<&)<,+3!=<)6<+!)6%!%/<)<,+n!3,*%!
,-!)6%!-%')2(%/!/%35(<"%/!'",?%!'(%!?<3<"7%I!
!
6;G<C9!Z!Q(%3%+)')<,+! ,-! )6%! )('+35(<&)<,+! X%G&'+/%/! ,&)<,+Y! ,-! TB! -I! aD^?I!O,)<5%! )6%! 7'#,2)! ,-! )%G)! <+),! )=,!5,72*+38!)6%!56'&)%(!+2*"%(!<+!"72%8!)6%!(2"(<5!<+!(%/8!)6%!'"!+2*"%(3!'(%!L23)!?<3<"7%!<+!-'/%/!1(%#8!'+/!'!35(<"'7!%*%+/')<,+!<3!6<167<16)%/!<+!)%'7!X5,72*+!:8!7<+%!DDYI!
!
!
XSXSU!)?;7;@A:!
P9C:;@A!UH2!.@OOH79?!9?;7;@A
!
F6%!!9/0!5,77')<,+!'+/!)6%!5(<)<5'7!%/<)<,+8!=%(%!5,*&7%)%/!"%)=%%+!.'(56!'+/!A2+%!
BCD_I Db_ !M! ='3! )6%! 3,7%! 5,77'),(8! '7)6,216! ')! -<(3)! )6%! )'3H! ='3! 5'((<%/! ,2)! =<)6!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Db_!F6%!)'3H3!,-!)6%!5,77')<,+!'+/!)6%!5(<)<5'7!%/<)<,+!=%(%!5'((<%/!,2)!"#!*%8!=<)6!U2%(<%3!'+3=%(%/!"#!:%+123!K'(/I!M!6'?%!=(<))%+!%73%=6%(%!'",2)!)6%!"%+%-<)3!"2)!'73,!)6%!/('="'5H3!,-!)6%(%!"%<+1!,+%!3,7%!5,77'),(!=6%+!5(%')<+1!'!/<1<)'7!%/<)<,+I!F6<3!&(,L%5)!=,27/!"%!'!-2()6%(!%G'*&7%!,-!)6<3I!4%%!$2G-<%7/8!jF6%!Q('5)<5'7<)<%3\8!_CJ_DI!!
260
significantsupportgivenbyAengusWard,andthroughoutwithtechnicalsupportfrom
PeterRobinson.TherawXMLfileswereconvertedfordigitalcollationusingTextual
Communities,whichcontainsaversionofCollateX,aswrittenbyRonaldDekkeratthe
HuygensInstitutvoorNederlandseGeschiedenis,andthendevelopedforuse in the
EstoriaDigitalbyCatherineSmithattheInstituteofTextualScholarshipandElectronic
Editing at the University of Birmingham, with the support of Robinson. Textual
Communitieswasupdatedand refinedduringtheperiodbetween the transcription
stageoftheEstoria,andthecollationoftheCPSF.Thiseditionwasoneofthefirstto
use Textual Communities 2 at the collation stage, which had both advantages and
disadvantages.149Robinsonhasdescribedmycollationas‘thefirstserioususe’ofthe
second iteration of Textual Communities. 150 At the time I was collating, Textual
Communities2wasavailableonlyasasandboxversion,andassuch,wasstillunder
development. This meant there were various teething difficulties, for example
compatibilityissueswithmyhardware,whereIwasunabletoaccesssomefeatures
due to the advanced age of my hardware, and problems with certain tags in the
collationversion,inparticulartheapptagwithinthebasetext,whichrequiredremoval
beforethetextwascollatablebythesystem.However,whilstcollatingIwasableto
contactRobinsondirectlyasthedeveloper,whichisunusualwhenusingsoftware.This
proved to be mutually beneficial, as it both enabled me to overcome some of the
idiosyncrasiesof the softwarewhilst stillundergoingdevelopment, andhighlighted
someissueswithinthesoftwarewhichneededtoberectifiedforthebenefitofother,
laterusers.Thisis,ofcourse,thedeveloper’sobjectiveforasandboxversion.
149SpecialthankstobothCatSmithandPeterRobinsonfortheirtechnicalsupporthere.150PeterRobinson,emailtoPollyDuxfield,AengusWardandCatherineSmith,02/06/2018.
261
Thecollationwaspossiblebecauseoftheidentificationmarkersofthetexttosentence
levelintodivsandabs,asdescribedabove.Asinthetranscription,thesenumbersare
visible to theuser for thepurposesofnavigationaroundthetext.Thepresentation
doesnotmimic the layoutof anyonemanuscript, andappearsasoneblockof text
ratherthancolumns.Muchofthisissimilartothemethodologyofthecollatededition
oftheEstoriaDigital,reflectingthefactthateventuallythetwoprojectswillbemerged,
andtheCPSFwillformapartofthewiderEstoriaDigital.151
Whenpreparingacollation,followingtranscription,thenexttaskforaneditoristo
choosewhichvariantsaretoberetainedandwhicharetoberegularisedout.Inthe
presentversionof theedition Ihavenot substitutedvariants fromwitnessesother
than the base text, and have presented them purely as a collated text. This step,
however,stillrequirestheeditortocarryoutadegreeofregularisationofvariants,as
notallvariantsmakeitasfarasappearinginthecollatedtext,andsomearelostatthe
regularisationstage.Bordalejostatesclearly that ‘the importanceofdecidingwhich
kinds of variant are considered significant and which are discarded as relatively
unimportantorevenmeaninglesscannotbestressedenough.’152Arguingthispoint,
shereferstoGeorgeKane’s1988editionofthe‘B’versionofPiersPlowman.Kane’s
approachissuchthathedoesnotalwayschoosevariantsaccordingtothestemmaof
thetexts,andasaresulthischoicesarebasedsolelyoneditorialjudgementandare
151TheEstoriadeEspannaDigitalproject,‘Methodology’,AengusWard(ed.)TheEstoriadeEspannaDigitalProject,http://estoria.bham.ac.uk/blog/?page_id=923#Critical-text[accessed22/02/2018]152BárbaraBordalejo,‘ChapterIV–TheoreticalAspectsofTextualVariation’,TheManuscriptSourceofCaxton’sSecondEditionoftheCanterburyTalesandItsPlaceintheTextualTraditionoftheTales,PhDThesis,DeMontfortUniversity,2002,pp.87-116,p.87
262
thereforearbitraryand,accordingtoBordalejo,‘notaveryusefulprinciplewhenone
isattemptingtoestablishwhatavariantis’.153Thisisthecasewhenoneisattempting
toprovideaversionofthetextaccordingtoLachmannianprinciples,hypothesisingan
archetype,whenoneisaimingtoestablishtherelationshipbetweentexts.Thisisnot
myaimwiththedigitalCPSF.Rather,itistopresentaversionofthetextthattakesinto
accountthediversityofthewitnessesofthetext,andallowsreaderstoaccessthese
withaslittletextualnoiseaspossible.ThisapproachhasbeeninformedbyMcGann’s
reasoningwhereitcanbeappliedtoamedievalcontext,andspecificallyhis‘socialized
concept of authorship and textual authority’.154Asmentioned above, LucíaMegías
differentiates between authorial ‘sound’ and emendatory ‘noise’, advocating the
reductionofnoise,toallowtherealsoundofthetexttobeheard.155Parker,however,
usesthetermdifferently:acollationcanbenoisy,heargues,whenitcontainstoomany
variants from toomanymanuscripts.156Since the objective of this edition is not to
purifythetextofemendationstorevealatextasclosetothearchetypeaspossible,but
rathertoprovideasingleuser-friendlyversionofthetext,withvariants,Iwillposition
myself closer to Parker than to Lucía Megías here. In the absence of an authorial
originaltext,onapracticallevelthismeansthatasageneralruleIhaveusuallyselected
variantsfromE2,thebasetext,since,asdiscussedabove,thisversionishierarchised
byitsreceptionanditsinclusioninthePCG.Sscontainsnorubrics,soisincompletein
thisway;FisawitnessofamoreconciseoriginalthanE2is,andseveralfolioshave
beenlost;andDandSarecompleteinthattheyendwiththedeathofFernandoand
153Bordalejo,TheManuscriptSourceofCaxton’sSecondEdition,p.91154McGann,ACritiqueofModernTextualCriticism,8155LucíaMegías,‘Manuales’,118156Parker,"TheNovumTestamentumGraecumEditioCriticaMaior’
263
notbefore,butcontainvariantsnotseeninE2.Forexample,therubricofdiv1048(PCG
1037)appearsasfollows:
MS TextE2 ¶capitłodelapⁱsiondecapiella⁊delfundamietodelaygłiadetoledo⁊de
comoseleuantoabenhucD ¶Capᵒdelosfejosdelrreydonferrnado⁊delarreynadonabeatriz⁊dela
pmerascaualgadasdesterreydonferrnadocontramoros⁊delasbuenasandançasqfizoconellosenconbatimjentos
S Cº ix como el Rey don ferrado çerco el castillo de capilla ⁊ lo conbatiomuchosdias⁊lopriso⁊sevjnoꝑatoledoEencomdesqestouoentoledoacordodeRenovarlaigłlesiadesamariadetoledoEpusolapⁱmerapiedraenstᵅmᵅdetoledo⁊lamado[gap5characters]⁊deotºscosasqlaestoriacuenta
Ss RubricsaremissingfromthismanuscriptfortheCPSF.F MissingfolioFigure5Tablecomparingdiv1048rubricasitappears(orfailstoappear)inallfivewitnesses
Thatsaid,examplessuchastheoneabovearereasonablyfewandfarbetween,and
whencollatingitquicklybecameclearthatforthemostparttherearerelativelyfew
variantsbetweenthewitnesseswhichwerenotprimarilyorthographic,orrelatedto
word-spacing.Thecontentofthewitnessesisoftenlargelysimilar,andwhilstitisnot
theaimofthisthesistosuggestastemmaforthesewitnesses–thiswouldrequirean
in-depthstudyoutsideofthescopeofthisparticularwork–itcanbesaidatthisstage
thatthesewitnessesarecloselyrelated.
Whenpreparing the collation,my intentionwas to retain only significant variants,
rather than purely orthographic variants. I hesitate to call these ‘stemmatically
264
significantvariants’, touseBordalejo’s term,157since this impliesmyobjective is to
hierarchiseaccordingtoastemma,whichitisnot,butIrecognisethatotherscholars
maychoosetousemydata forthispurpose in the future.This isamajorbenefitof
digitaleditionsoverprintededitions,andworthemphasizing–thatthedataproduced
tomakeaneditioncanbeusedagain,anddifferentlyatalaterdate.Indecidingwhich
variantstoretain,IhaveborrowedfromBordalejo,andhavekept‘additions,deletion
and substitutions, all the changes inword-order, [and] all substantive variants’.158
HereBordalejoisreferringtoGreg’snotionofsubstantivevariants,which,aswesaw
earlier,heusestomean‘thosethataffecttheauthor’smeaningortheessenceofhis
expression.’159Whilstmanyorthographicvariantscanbeconsidered‘accidentals’,to
useGreg’sterm,andarenotretained,likeBordalejo,Ialsorecognisetheneedtotake
carewiththese,since,assheexplains, ‘thedifferenceintheirspelling[canbe]such
thattheybecomesubstantivevariants’.160Inpracticemuchofthetimethismeansthat
variantsareregularisedtothebasetext.Thesevariantsaredisplayedbelow:161
i/j/yasvowels contractionssuchasdealli,dalliu/v/basconsonants punctuationo/umid-word capitalisations/z/ç word-spacing/divisionss/s/ç m/nbeforebilabialconsonsantspa/para e/etwordinitialh(heredero,eredero) culto consonant clusters such as f/ph,
sancto/santointervocalic double consonants (‘`rr’ istakenonacasebycasebasis)
c/ç/z
s/sc/sçmid-word no/non
157Bordalejo,TheManuscriptSourceofCaxton’sSecondEdition,p.96158Bordalejo,TheManuscriptSourceofCaxton’sSecondEdition,p.104159Greg,21-22160Bordalejo,TheManuscriptSourceofCaxton’sSecondEdition,p.104161ThecollationnormshereareheavilyinfluencedbythoseusedbyAengusWardtocreatetheEstoriadeEspannaDigitaledition,whicharediscussedinWard,‘TheEstoriadeEspannaDigital:collatingmedievalprose’,22-27
265
Inothercases,Ihavecarriedoutsimpleregularisations:
wordinitialrr/ff(taggedasglyphs) RegularisetoR/F
Propernounsarenotregularisedinthecollation,asorthographicchangesherecan
helpscholarstoascertainastemma,particularlyifthevariantshavebeenintroduced
duetothesewordsbeingunfamiliartothescribe.Theonlycaveatherebeingthat,as
WardhasdoneintheEstoriaDigital,Ihaveregularisedouti/jvariantsinpropernouns
wheretheonlydifferenceisthelengthofthedescender,162sinceitisquitefeasiblethat
thesedifferencesmayhavearisenat transcription level:whatone transcribermay
markasaj,thatis,aniwithalongdescender,anothermaymarkasani.Otherfeatures
are also not regularised, again for the reason of the possibility that they may be
stemmaticallyorcontextuallysignificant:
wordinitialh/f o/dowordinitialh/asuchasha/a reys/reyesome/omne so/su/suyo,morio/murio,logar/lugargrand(e),gran,grant+plurals Metathesis such as peligro/periglo,
fermosa/fremosag/gi/j with consonantic value –muger/mugier
regno/reyno
tonicpreterites gente/yenteimperfectsendingin-ia/-ie lo/la/le,los/las/les(pronouns)
Wardarguesagainstretainingallpunctuationvariants,notbecausesuchvariantsare
trivial,butbecausepunctuationreallyneedstobestudiedatmanuscriptlevel,andnot
usingcollatededitions.163Hisreasoninghereisconvincing,soIhaveadopteditforthe
CPSF.Asisoftenthecasewithdigitaleditions,Iexpectuserstoengagewith,scrutinise
162Ward,‘TheEstoriadeEspannaDigital:collatingmedievalprose’,22163Ward,‘TheEstoriadeEspannaDigital:collatingmedievalprose’,23
266
(andinsomecasesdisagreewith)myeditorialdecisions,andtorefertotheimagesof
the manuscripts to do this. Although this could be daunting for an editor, the
opportunityforuserstodothisisanotheradvantageofadigitaledition.
AsIdescribedinDigitalPhilology,164beingthesolecollatorofthetextwasbeneficial
for streamlining the task and not having to liaise with others over regularisation
decisions,whichcanmaketheactivityslower,butthisalsohaddrawbacks.Despitethe
removalofmuchofthe‘drudgery’involvedwithhandcollation,asdescribedbyboth
ParkerandGreethamrespectively,165thereisstilladegreeofdrudgerytobeendured
whencollatingelectronically.Whenthereisonlyonecollator,thisdrudgeryfallssolely
ontotheshouldersofoneperson.TheTextualCommunitiescollationtoolisquickand
easy to use, and at points the collatormight beworking at a rate of one collation
decisionpersecond.Thebenefitofthistothecollatoratthetimeofcollationisclear,
althoughitmustberememberedthattheeventualuseroftheeditionwillbeableto
scrutiniseatleisuredecisionsmadequicklyduringcollation.WhilstIaimedtoabide
closelywith my stated collation norms, as given above, during the collation some
queriesarosenecessitatingthecreationoffurthernorms.Inpractice,wherethereis
nobodymoderatingthecollationdecisionstaken,itcanbeeasyforasolecollatorto
introduceinconsistencies,despitetheirbesteffortsnottodoso.
164Duxfield,‘ThePracticalitiesofCollaborativelyDigitallyEditingManuscripProse’,80-81165Parker,‘ThroughaScreenDarkly’,395;Greetham,TextualScholarship–AnIntroduction,p.359
!
!Be^!
@%7,=!'(%!)=,!35(%%+36,)3!,-!)6%!5,77')<,+!=<)6<+!)6%!/<1<)'7!%/<)<,+I!
!
!
6;G<C9! !45(%%+36,)!,-!)6%!5,77')<,+!=<)6<+!)6%!/<1<)'7!!9/0I!
!
M+!)6%!35(%%+36,)3!'",?%8!<)!5'+!"%!3%%+!)6')8!'3!/%35(<"%/8!)6%!5,77')<,+!'&&%'(3!<+!,+%!
5,72*+8!=<)6!)6%!/<?!'+/!'"!+2*"%(3!&(%3%+)%/!'3!<+!)6%!)('+35(<&)<,+38!'+/!)6%!(2"(<5!
<+!(%/I!M)%*3!=<)6!?'(<'+)3!'(%!6<167<16)%/!<+!)6%!5,77')<,+!=<)6!<+?%()%/!5,**'3I!F6<3!
268
makesthetextrather‘noisy’,andisdisruptivetotheflowofreading.Thesecommas
couldberemoved,butthentheonlywaytoknowthatanitemhasavariantwouldbe
tohoverovereveryword,whichisequallyasunsatisfactory.Anotheroptionwouldbe
tointroduceanotherfontcolour,butIfelttherewerealreadyseveralfontcoloursin
useacrosstheedition,andalsotheEstoriaDigitalusestheseinvertedcommas,soIfelt
itwouldbebeneficial to theusertomaintaina levelofconsistency.Whentheuser
hoversoveranitemwithvariantsitturnsblue,asdoesthevariantinthe footnotes
below.Inlongerchapters,asthisoneis,thecollationandthefootnotescannotbeseen
withoutscrollingdown.Thistoo,islessthansatisfactory,butisthebestwehaveatthe
current time,withintheconfinesof timeandfinances. In the future Iwould liketo
explore other options for the presentation of the collation, such as the variants
appearinginmouse-overboxes,orvisibleinsuchawaythattheusercanviewboth
thecollationandfootnotesat thesametime,perhaps inadjacentcolumns,andthat
bothcolumnsscrollsimultaneously.
Version2b:Reader’stext
The digital CPSF also contains a reader’s text. 166 This is a version with some
regularisationoforthography,punctuationandcapitalisation,thenormsforwhichare
basedon those for the regularisedreader’s editionof theEstoria, byAengusWard,
166RicardoPichelkindlyproof-readthisversionofthetextandprovidedusefulsuggestionsforitsimprovement.Thiswasasignificantundertaking,forwhichIofferhimmymostsincerethanks.
269
EnriqueJerezandRicardoPichel,167butwithsomeminormoderation.168Itisworth
revisiting here Tanselle and Bowers’ respective comments on the validity of
modernised editions; both have spoken unequivocally on the matter. Tanselle
describedmodernisingeditionsas‘confusedandunhistorical’andoftheireditorsas
‘condescendingandofficious’;169andBowers’afore-citedcommentisnolesspointed:
‘one may flatly assert that any text that is modernized can never pretend to be
scholarly, no matter at what audience it is aimed’. 170 Both Tanselle and Bowers,
however, are editors of texts later than theCPSF, and of printed texts rather than
medieval texts, which, as detailed above, bring their own peculiarities and issues,
including, for example, a requirement for users of non-regularised editions to
understandmedievalsyntaxandspelling,withoutthehelpofmodernisedpunctuation
andcapitalisation.Furthermore,likethereader’seditionoftheEstoria,thereader’s
CPSFhasbeenregularised,andnotfullymodernised,thatis,itretainsthesyntaxand
lexisofthebasetext,butsomeoftheorthographyandpunctuationhasbeenedited.
Thisisnotto‘depriv[e]thereaderoftheexperienceofreadingtheoriginaltext,’171as
Tansellescathinglysuggestsofmodernisingeditors,buttomakeitmoreaccessibleto
non-experts,whomayevenchoosetousethereader’sversionassteppingstonetothe
morescholarlyversionsoftheedition.AsTansellestates,regularisingasIhavedone
doescreateanunhistoricaltext.Myaim,however,isnottobehistorical,butratherto
167TheEstoriadeEspannaDigitalProject,EstoriadeEspannaDigitalv.1.0,Criteriaforthereader’stext,http://estoria.bham.ac.uk/blog/?page_id=933[accessed10/10/2017]168Seeestoria.bham.ac.uk/cpsf/methodology.html[accessed23/06/2018]169Tanselle,‘TheEditingofHistoricalDocuments’,49170Bowers,223171Tanselle,‘TheEditingofHistoricalDocuments’,49
270
enablethetexttoberead,understood,andenjoyedbythoseunaccustomedtoreading
medievalCastilian.
SpenceremindsusoftheenormousnumberofInternetusers:citinga2013figureof
2.7million172–atthetimeofwriting(June2018),thisfigureisestimatedtobecloser
to3.9million,andrising.173This,hestates,has implications for thedigitaleditorof
medievaltexts,sincethepotentialaudienceofadigitaleditionisinfinitelygreaterthan
thatofaprintededition.174Althoughitismostprobablethatonlyatinypercentageof
the Internet’s totaluserswill accessadigitaledition, it is farmore likely thatnon-
specialistswillcomeacrosssucharesourcethanmaybelikelytouseaprintededition.
Manyofthesenon-specialistswillbeunaccustomedtoreadingmedievalCastilian,for
exampleamateurhistorians,interestedmembersofthepublic,orhistorystudents,and
may find an unregularised edition off-putting at best, and at worst completely
inaccessible.OtherusersmaybemoreinterestedinwhatiswrittenintheCPSFthan
exactlyhowitiswritten.Ontheotherhand,Pierazzoarguestheopposite:‘Becauseof
theirfreeavailabilityontheWeb,theireditors[theeditorsofdigitaleditions]seemto
thinkthattheyshouldalsoappealtoamuchlargeraudience,anassumptionwhichis
notnecessarilytrue.’175Wefindourselvesfacedwithafundamentalquestion:whois
adigitaleditionfor?InthecaseofmedievalCastilian,wheretheunaccustomedmay
finditextremelydifficulttoreadanunmodifiedversionofthetext,butafewminor
172Spence,‘Sieteretos’,167,quotingfromhttp://www.itu.int/en/ITU-/Statistics/Documents/facts/ICTFactsFigures2013-s.pdf.(noaccessdategiven)173InternationalTelecommunicationUnion(ITU),WorldBank,andUnitedNationsPopulationDivision,Internetusersintheworld,http://www.internetlivestats.com/internet-users/[accessed17/06/2018]174Spence,‘Sieteretos’,167175Pierazzo,DigitalScholarlyEditing,p.15175Robinson,‘TheDigitalRevolutioninScholarlyEditing’,p.181
271
changestoorthographyandpunctuationcangreatlyalleviatethis,ifadigitaledition
hasthepossibilitytoprovideuserswitharegularisedversionasonewithinarangeof
optionsforviewingandstudyingtheeditedtext,notprovidingaregularisedversionis
tantamount to intentionally excluding non-specialists and non-academics, and a
continuation of the privileged and separatist ivory tower of academic research.
Providingdoingsodoesnotcompromisetheintegrityoftheresearchitself,itisour
dutytoavoidsuchseparatism,aseditorsareacademicsworkingwithinwidersociety,
forwidersociety,andinmanycasesfundedbypublicsubvention(asthisthesisis,for
example). Robinson provides us with a poignant statement for making our digital
editionsaccessibletovariousreaderships:
Weallknowthetoposthatwearestandingontheshouldersof thescholarswhohaveprecededus.Thedigitalageoffersavariantonthis.Aswellasstandontheshouldersofothers,weshouldhelpotherstostandonourshoulders.176
Since providing a regularised version of theCPSF does not detract from themore
scholarlyversionsincludedinthedigitaledition,andallowsamuchwideraudience
accesstotheedition,Icanfindnostrongargumenttonotprovideone.
GiventhatthisthesisformspartofthewiderEstoriaDigital,thereisalevelofsimilarity
betweenthefundamentalprinciplesofregularisationinthisversion,asthereisforthe
reader’seditionoftheEstoria.177Asmentionedabove,thereader’seditionoftheCPSF
largelyfollowstheEstoriaregularisationnormsasdecidedforthebyWard,Picheland
Jerez.178Thesenormsareconservativeintermsoftheleveloforthographicchanges
176Robinson,‘TheDigitalRevolutioninScholarlyEditing’,p.201177Thiscanbeviewedat:Ward,EstoriadeEspannaDigital,v.1.0,http://estoria.bham.ac.uk/edition/[accessed10/10/2017]178TheEstoriadeEspannaDigitalProject,Criteriaforthereader’stext
272
madebytheeditor,andtheuseofapostrophesforomittedletters,andtheymakeas
fewchangesaspossibletofacilitatereading,whilstmaintainingthefeelandstyleof
thetextasitappearsinE2.Onlywhereitwasdeemednecessarytofulfiltheprimary
aimofthisversion–tofacilitatereadingbynon-specialists–haveImadeorthographic
orother changes.Forexample,whereaword isomitted fromE2but is included in
anothermanuscriptorthePCG,anditsomissioninthereader’seditionwouldmake
thephrasedifficult tounderstand, Ihave includedtheword inthereader’sedition.
Similarly,whereanabbreviationmarkhasbeenomittedinthemanuscript,sotheword
hasnotbeenexpandedintheeditedversion,iftheomittedlettersmakethewordmore
difficulttounderstand,Ihavereplacedthem.Twoexamplesaretirra,meaningtierra,
andqbrantar,meaningquebrantar.TheregularisationcriteriafortheEstoriaDigital
state thatpropernounsshouldappear in thereader’sedition justas theydo inthe
transcription,withthesoleadditionofcapitallettersaccordingtomodernusage.Here
I have moved slightly away from the Estoria norms: I took the view that if I am
regularising,forexample,uandv,accordingtotheirconsonantalorvocalicvalueinthe
restofthetext,Ishouldalsoregularisetheminnames:aluarinthetranscribedtext
wouldthereforebecomeAlvar.Again,thereasoningbehindthiseditorialchoiceisthe
aimtofacilitatereadingbyanon-specialist,whilstmaintainingtheintegrityofthetext.
Furthermore, in themanuscript somenamesappearwithmore thanonespelling. I
regularisedthesewiththeintentionofmakingtheversionaseasilylegibleaspossible
fornon-specialistreaders.Throughouttheregularisationprocess,thereisatightrope
to be walked between maintaining the medieval feel to the text in terms of
orthography,punctuationandsyntax,thatistosayinnotmodernisingthetexttoofar
fromtheoriginal,andinenablinginterestedbutnon-specialistreaderstoaccessthe
273
textwithoutthecomprehensionbarrierscreatedthroughtheirbeinguninitiatedwith
thedetailsofMedievalCastilian.
Thereader’sversionisbasedonthetextofE2,butdrawingalsoonthePCGtofillin
textinthemainbodywhichisunclearinthemanuscriptimagesofE2,andforwhich
transcriptions could not be made by members of the Estoria teamwhen working
directlyfromE2(ratherthanusingthedigitalimages).MissingrubricsinE2havebeen
filledinwiththerubricasitappearsinD,aswhilstcollatingitcouldbeseenthatthe
rubricsinDareveryweresimilartothoseofE2.WherethePCGandtheEstoriaDigital
transcriptionsbothhavetextforthemainbody,butthistextdiffers,Ihaveusedthe
transcribed text from the Estoria Digital transcriptions, and not the PCG. The
punctuationinthereader’sversionisprimarilybasedonthepunctuationusedinthe
PCG, as is theuseof capital letters, andword-spacinganddivision,butwithminor
changes, such as removing some commas, and swapping some semi-colons for full
stopsorcommas,whereIconsideredthesetobemoreappropriate.179
WhereanylacunaeorillegibletextinE2hasbeenfilledinfromthePCGorD,orwhere
missingexpansionsduetomissingabbreviationmarksinthemanuscripthavebeen
supplied,orwherethereareclearscribalspellingerrorsinE2suchascurepoforcuerpo
thathavebeencorrected,thishasbeendoneassilenteditorialemendations,andnot
highlightedinthereader’sversion.Onecouldarguethatdoingsoremovesinformation
in which some users may be interested, but as Kline points out, even the most
179OnthismatterItookadvicefromRicardoPichel.
274
conservativeeditionsincorporateanynumberofsilentemendations.180Furthermore,
Itooktheviewthatthosewhoarelikelytobeinterestedinthislevelofdetailofthe
contents of a givenmanuscript can either themanuscript imagesor transcriptions
usingtheedition,andthoseusingareader’sversiontoaccessthetextareunlikelyto
requiresuchdetail.Highlightinginareader’sversiontosuchalevelofdetailwould
createextratextualnoisethatusersoftheeditionwouldhavetocontendwith,and
again,withtheusersofthisparticularversioninmind,thiswasdeemedinappropriate
forthisaudience.Aregularisedversionofthetextisbyitsnatureunhistorical.Ithasa
placeasoneofarangeofpresentationsofatextinadigitaledition,andithasavalid
usage,asitcanopenupthecontentofthetexttoreaders,andtheeditiontousers,who
mayotherwisefindreadingittoocumbersome.Itsusageforclosestudyis,however,
tobeavoided,asisstatedintheuserguide.181
Asanexampleofwhatdigitaleditorsofmedievalprosetextsmightchoosetoinclude
inanedition,Ihaveincludedanaudiofileofonedivofthereader’seditionbeingread
aloud. 182 This idea came from Heather Bamford and Emily Francomano, when
discussing their digital edition of the Libro de Buen Amor, at the 2016 conference
markingthelaunchoftheEstoriaDigital.183Thedivchosenastheexemplaris1057,
whichwaschosenbecauseitisthischapterwhichhasbeentranslated,givingusersthe
widestpossiblevarietyofpresentationsandtoolsofthisparticularsectionoftheCPSF.
180Kline,p.104181Seeestoria.bham.ac.uk/cpsf/methodology.html[accessed23/06/2018].182ThereaderisRicardoPichel,whokindlydonatedhistimeforthistask.Theusercanaccessthisaudiofilebyselectingchapter1057inthereader’sversion,andclickingonthe‘play’symboltriangleatthetopofthetextboxcontainingthechapter.183HeatherBamfordandEmilyFrancomano,TheDigitalLibroProject:PerspectivesonDigitalManuscriptCulture,4thAnnualColloquiumoftheEstoriadeEspannaDigitalProject(UniversityofBirmingham,UK,13-15thDecember2016)
275
Theversionof the text readaloud is the reader’sversion, andnotoneof themore
scholarly versions of the text. This is because, whilst not wholly unscholarly, this
featureisanovelty.Itdoesworktowardsthereader’sversionobjectiveofmakingthe
textmoreaccessible fornon-experts, so themost likelyaudience toappreciate this
wouldbethosewhowouldalsobelikelytousethereader’sedition.Somescholarsmay
feela featuresuchas this issuperficial,andtherefore inappropriate forascholarly
edition.TothiselitistviewIwouldarguethathavingsuchafeaturetoappealtosome
lessspecialistusersoftheeditiondoesnotdetractfromthemorespecialistversions
of theedition,ormakethesescholarlyversionsany lessscholarly.Unlike inaprint
edition where the editor would be unable to cater for the needs of such differing
audiences,adigitaleditorcanoftenprovidedifferentversionsoftheedition,andusers
can access thatwhich ismost appropriate to their needs. Again, we return to the
questionofiftimeandmoneyallowustoenablenon-specialiststoaccessthematerials
weasscholarsproduce,canwereallyjustifytheirdeliberateexclusionbypurposely
lockingourworkinthemetaphoricalivorytower?
Version2c:Digitalcriticaledition
Referringtothoseworkingtocreateresourcesinthehumanitiesingeneral,andalso
specifically within digital humanities, Spence remarks pointedly that ‘rara vez se
planteaenestacomunidadacadémicaaprendermássobreelpúblicorealdenuestro
trabajo’. He argues that to create resources that better serve the needs of our
audiences,digitaleditorsmustlookformoreinformationabouttheiraudiencesand
276
theywaysinwhichtheywill,orwouldliketousetheresourceswecreate.184WhilstI
havenot formallycarriedoutastudytoascertaintheneedsofmyaudience, Ihave
spentthepastfiveyearswhilstworkingfortheEstoria projectmakingaconscious
efforttobeawareoftheneedsofouraudience,asfarastheymaketheseclearthrough
Facebookposts,repliesandengagementwithourblogposts,viaonlineforumsandat
conferences.ItisalsopossibletoseefromtheEstoriaDigitalFacebookpagethatthe
majorityoftheaudienceisSpanish-speaking,closelyfollowedbyAnglophones:data
analysedbyFacebook,basedonthatprovidedbyuserswho‘like’usshowsthatthe
majority of our likers are Spanish-speakers. 185 Of the 698 likers, 48% are from
Spanish-speakingcountries,186and25%fromEnglish-speakingcountries.187Although
notalloftheselikerswillaccessouredition,andtherewillbesomeusersoftheedition
whodonotlikeusonFacebook,thesefiguresgiveageneralideaofthedemographics
of our audience. Similar data regarding the demographics of thosewho access the
EstoriaDigitalhomepageiscollatedbyGoogle:30.5%ofusers(360individuals)are
fromSpain,and29.3%(345)areintheUK.Thisdataisprobablyskewedslightlydue
to the fact that themajority of the team still working on the edition are based in
BirminghamandSheffield.188Thedemographicsoftheaudienceoftheeditionofthe
184Spence,‘Sieteretos’,168-169185ThedatainthissectionwaspulledfromthestatisticspageoftheEstoriadeEspannaDigitalprojectFacebookpageon20thFebruary2018andwasaccurateatthetimeofwriting;Languagestatedas‘Spanish’–169profiles,‘Spanish(Spain)–149,‘English(US)–148,English(UK)–74.Thedatafromoneprofilewhoselanguageisgivenas‘English(pirate)’hasbeendiscounted.NB.Userscanhavemorethanonelanguagelistedontheirprofile.186Spain–229,Mexico–47,Argentina–42,Colombia–8,Chile–4,Venezuela–2,Paraguay–2,Peru–2,PuertoRico–2.187UK–86,USA–82,Australia–2,Ireland–2.188Thisdatareferstouserswhohaveaccessedtheeditionhomepage–datafortheeditionitselfisunfortunatelynotavailable.Datacitedherereferstotheperiod04/07/2017-13/06/2018.GoogleAnalytics–Audienceoverview–EstoriadeEspannaEdition,http://bit.ly/2ycpjtc[accessed13/08/2018]
277
CPSFislikelytobenotwildlydissimilarinmakeuptothatoftheEstoria,andwhere
therearedifferences,duetothemorespecialisednatureoftheCPSFincomparisonto
thewide appeal and fame of theEstoria de Espanna, this is likely to be evenmore
heavily-weightedtowardsHispanophonecultures.
Withthedemographicsofouraudienceinmind,wecanreturntoGreetham’scomment
thatwhentheexpectationsofusersandtheeditionitselfaremisaligned,theedition
andeditorareoftenperceivedbytheusertobeincompleteorincorrect.189Thelargely
Spanish-languagecontextofthemajorityofusersoftheeditionwillbringexpectations
withthem.WhattheseexpectationsarewasseeninSection1.4ofthisthesis:following
abriefoverviewof theworkofsomekeyscholarsandresearch instituteswhodeal
withtheeditingofmedievalproseinCastilian,IconcludedthatwithinaHispanophone
context,acriticaleditionwouldbeexpectedasstandardbymanyusers,apartfromin
veryspecificcases.190AccordingtoOrduna,191SECRIT,192andCHARTA,193anycritical
editioncouldbecomplementarytootherversionsoftheeditiontofulfiltheneedsof
otherusers.TheEstoriaDigitaldoesnotprovideacriticaleditionbecauseitfallsinto
oneof thesecases,giventhat therearearoundfortyextantmanuscripts,butat the
momentonly fivemanuscriptsmakeuptheedition,soanycriticaleditionprovided
wouldbebasedonincompleteinformation.ThedigitalCPSF,however,isbasedonthe
fivemainwitnessesoftheworkinCastilian,asoutlinedbydelaCampa–E2,Ss,D,S
189Greetham,TextualScholarship–AnIntroduction,p.354190Orduna,‘Laedicióncrítica’,inFunesandLucíaMegías,p.19;LucíaMegías,‘Manuales’,115-153;Sánchez-PrietoBorja,Laedicióndetextosespañolesmedievalesyclásicos,p.15;Blecua,Manualdecríticatextual,p.163191Orduna,‘Laedicióndetextoshistóricosenespañol’,inFunesandLucíaMegías,pp.153-154192IBIICRITCONICET,SECRITIBIICRIT,193RedCHARTA,Criteriosdeedicióndedocumentoshispánicos(orígenes-sigloXIX)delaredinternacionalCHARTA(versiondatedApril2013)within‘leermás’.
278
andF.194ItisnotonlyintheHispanophoneworldthatcriticaleditionsareconsidered
centraltoadigitaledition,wherepossible:forexample,Robinsonlaudsmanyofthe
featuresincludedinShaw’seditionofDante’sCommedia,butofherfailuretoinclude
adigitaleditionheisscathing:
Yet,thereisonethingmissingfromShaw’sedition.Shedoesnotprovideherowneditedtext.Thisabsencestrikesmeasthesinglemostremarkableelementoftheedition.Itshiftsthefocusawayfromtheeditor,asmakerofatext,tothedocumentsthemselvesandwhatwemightlearnfromthem.Thecentreoftheeditionisnottheproduct:theeditedtext,withallelseseenasancillary,preparatory,andexplanatory.Thecentreoftheeditionisprocess:thesearchforunderstandingofallthesedocumentsandhowtheyrelatetoeachother.195
Withalloftheaboveinmind,Ihaveprovidedacriticaleditionofthetext.
WhendefendinghisdecisionnottoincludeafullcriticaleditionintheEstoriaDigital,
butratheraversionwhichdoesnothierarchiseanyonemanuscript(apartfromthe
foliosknowntobeAlfonsine),Ward,ascitedabove,arguesthathisobjectiveis‘notto
fixtheEstoria,butrathertoallowitbreatheinitstextualdiversity’.196Thisisalsomy
objective in theCPSF. Ihavea furtherobjectivetoo: to fulfil theexpectationsof the
intendedaudience,byprovidingacriticaledition.Thisisnotintendedtohypothesise
anarchetype,alostoriginalversionoftheCrónica,butinsteadtoprovideuserswith
oneversionofthetext,withvariantsnoted.
ItisinthiswaythatthecriticaleditionoftheCPSFdiffersfromtheEstoriaDigitaland
fromthecollatedversionofthisedition:Ihavegoneonestepfurtherthancollation,
194DelaCampainAlvarandLucíaMegías,p.360195Robinson,‘TheDigitalRevolutioninScholarlyEditing’,p.196196TheEstoriadeEspannaDigitalproject,‘Methodology’
279
that is,where appropriate, base text readings are replaced by readings fromother
manuscriptswherethesearejudgedtobebetter.Theremainingvariantsarerelegated
toappearinginmouse-overboxes,inplaceof footnotesasinaprintededition,ora
digitaleditionadheringmorecloselytoprintnorms.Mouse-overboxeswerechosen
over footnotes, with the aim ofmaking the editionmore reader-friendly, avoiding
disruptingtheflowofreadingwherepossible.197WhenstudyingtheOnlineFroissartI
found it disruptive to the flow of text that supplementary material, such as that
included inmymouse-overboxes,couldnotbeaccessedwhilstreadingtheedition,
andinsteadahyperlinktoaseparatepagewasprovided.Itooktheconsciousdecision
toavoiddoingthiswhencreatingmyowndecision.
The criteria forwhat constitutesa ‘better’ reading in this edition isnotas clearas
wouldbethecaseinapureLachmannianapproach,wherethevariantclosesttothat
hypothesisedtobeauthorialwouldbegiveninplaceofothervariants.Theapproach
takeninthiseditionisclosertothatofabest-textapproach.BythisImeanthatE2is
consideredforpracticalreasonstobethebesttext,butwhererequired,variantsare
takenfromwitnessesnotprivilegedsolelybecauseoftheirproximitytoourhypothesis
ofauthorialintention.E2istakenasthebasetextnotbecauseitisconsideredtobethe
oldest version, or that with fewest emendations from the source. Instead, E2 is
consideredthe‘best’versionofthetextintermsofthepracticalitiesofcreatingthe
edition, andhasbeenhierarchised throughreception, as it appearswithin thePCG.
Followingthisbest-textapproach,Ihaveemended‘onlywherestrictlynecessary’,198
197Thereadermayliketonoticethecontrastwiththecollation,asdescribedabove.Becauseofthesystemusedtocreatethecollation,Iwasnotabletoaffectitspresentation.198Haugen,‘ThespiritofLachmann,thespiritofBédier’,p.9
280
thatistosay,wheretherearegapsinthetextofE2,orwhereE2hasagrammatical
issue,forexampleifthereareerrorssuchasalackofagreementbetweenthedefinite
articleandnoun,oramissingabbreviationmark inthemanuscript imagemeaning
thereisamissingexpansioninthetranscription.199HereIhavetakeneachexampleon
anindividualbasis,andhavesubstitutedtextfromotherwitnessesusingthecriteria
below:
1. MainbodyvariantshierarchiseS,andthenSs,sinceFhasvariouslacunae,and
weknowtheoriginalhadundergonethe lossofasectionbythetime itwas
copiedforD.
2. RubricvariantshierarchiseDwherepossible,sinceSshasnorubrics,various
rubricsaremissinginF,andtherubricator’shandinSisextremelydifficultto
readinparts.WhereDcannotbeusedforsomereason,IlookfirsttoF(todiv
1058),andthentoSforrubricvariants.
Inthisrespectthiseditionislikelytoreceivecriticismfromthosefavouringastrict
Lachmannianapproach,but,asIargueabove, theobjectiveofthisexerciseisnotto
provide a hypothesis for an original text, but rather to present the text in a user-
friendlymannerwithvariants.
Intermsofmethodology,thesevariantswereplacedintothereader’sversionofthe
edition, and the orthographic and punctuational regularisation that took place to
create that version has been retained, and extended, where appropriate to these
199Instancesofthiswererare,andoftheonesthatthereare,manywerespottedbyRicardoPichelwhenproofreadingthecriticaledition.
281
variants.Thereasonforthisisthat,likethereader’sversion,acriticaleditionisalso
unhistoricalbynature.Retainingtheorthography,word-spacingorcapitalisationof
thesourcewitnesswouldgiveinconsistenciesbetweenthetextofE2andanyvariants
beingintroducedintothetext,andmayalsotemptsomereadersoftheeditiontouse
itforclosestudy,inplaceofthetranscriptionsorthemanuscriptsthemselves.Thisis
tobeavoided,andusersshouldbeawareofthesignificanthealthwarningthatcomes
with its use for anything other than as a text, with variants, presented in as user-
friendlyawayaspossible, justas theyshouldwithallcriticaleditions.200As for the
reader’sversion,theuser’sattentionisbroughttothisinthemethodologypageofthe
edition.Itisforthesamereasoningthatthecriticaltext,likethereader’sversion,is
notpresentedinsuchawaythatmimicsmanuscriptmise-en-page.Botheditorsand
usersoftheeditionareremindedthatanydigitalcriticaleditionistobeconsidereda
‘workinghypothesis’201ratherthanthe‘authoritativefinalstatement’202itoncemay
havebeen.Unlikeinthereader’sversion,however,wheresubstitutionsaremadefrom
otherwitnessesorfromthePCGwithoutmarkingthisinthetext,substitutedvariants
arenotedhereusingfontcolour(blue,todifferentiatethetextfromthemainbodyof
E2andtherubrics inred).Allsubstitutedvariantsappear inblue,regardlessof the
sourcewitness,asIfeltthathavingacolourforeachwitnesswouldbeconfusingfor
readers andwould provide textual noise, but information aboutwhere the variant
camefromcanbefoundinmouse-overboxes.Thiscanbeseeninthefigurebelow.
200AengusWard,‘Past,presentandfutureintheLatinandRomancehistoriographyofthemedievalChristiankingdomsofSpain’,JournalofMedievalIberianStudies,Vol.1Issue2(2009),147-162,151201JoséManuelLucía Megías, ‘La crítica textual ante el siglo XXI: la primacía del texto,’ in Lillian von der Walde Moheno (ed.), ‘Propuestas teórico-metodológicas para el estudio de la literatura hispánica medieval’, Medievalia 27 (2003) special issue, 417–92 202PatrickSahle,‘WhatisaScholarlyDigitalEdition?’MatthewJamesDriscollandElenaPierazzo(Eds.)DigitalScholarlyEditing–TheoriesandPractice,(Cambridge,UK:OpenBookPublishers,2016)e-bookhttp://dx.doi.org/10.11647/ OBP.0095[accessed21/02/2018]pp.19-39,p.29
!
!B_B!
!
6;G<C9!_!Q(%3%+)')<,+!,-! )6%!5(<)<5'7!%/<)<,+I!F6<3!%G'*&7%!<3!/<?!DCbCI!:!?'(<'+)!<3!6<167<16)%/!<+!"72%8!'+/!)6%!*,23%J,?%(!",G!-,(!)6<3!?'(<'+)!<3!?<3<"7%!<+!)6<3!<*'1%8!36,=<+1!)6%!*'+235(<&)3!<+!=6<56!)6%!?'(<'+)!'&&%'(3I!
!
K6<73)!<)!<3!+,)!*#!,"L%5)<?%!6%(%!),!3)2/#!)6%!%/<)<,+!<+!,(/%(!),!'35%()'<+!'!3)%**'8!
"2)!(')6%(!),!&(%3%+)!)6%!)%G)!'3!'!(%3,2(5%!-,(!,)6%(!356,7'(3!'+/!+,+J%G&%()3!'7<H%8!<)!
<3!&,33<"7%!')!)6<3!3)'1%!),!*'H%!3,*%!&(%7<*<+'(#!(%*'(H3!'",2)!)6%!=<)+%33%3!-(,*!
5'((#<+1!,2)!)6%!5,77')<,+I!F6%!-<(3)!,-!)6%3%!<3!)6')!)6%!(2"(<53!,-!TB!'+/!$!'(%!,-)%+!
%G)(%*%7#! 3<*<7'(8! 3211%3)<+1! )6')! )6%#!=%(%! %<)6%(! 5,&<%/! -(,*! )6%! 3'*%! ,(! 57,3%!
%G%*&7'(3I!F6,3%!,-!4!/<--%(!-(,*!)6,3%!,-!TB!'+/!$8!'+/!,+!*'+#!,55'3<,+3!5,+)'<+!
*')%(<'7!+,)!-,2+/!<+!TB!,(!$I!M+!)6%!*'<+!",/#8!?'(<'+)3!-(,*!,)6%(!*'+235(<&)3!6'?%!
"%%+!32"3)<)2)%/!<+),!)6%!)%G)!,-!TB!=6%(%!)6%(%!'(%!7'52+'%8!-,77,=<+1!)6%!5(<)%(<'!'3!
3)')%/!'",?%I!N+!)6%!*'L,(<)#!,-!,55'3<,+3!=6%(%!)6%(%!'(%!1'&3!<+!)6%!)('+35(<&)<,+!,-!
TB!),!"%!32"3)<)2)%/!=<)6!)%G)!-(,*!,)6%(!*'+235(<&)38!)6%!?'(<'+)3!32"3)<)2)%/!5,<+5</%!
<+!-,2(!*'+235(<&)3!X$8!Z8!48!43Y!),!=6%(%!)6%!)%G)!,-!Z!-<+<36%38!,(!<+!)6(%%!*'+235(<&)3!
X$8!48!43Y!'-)%(! )6<3!&,<+)I!TG'*&7%3!=6%(%!)6%(%!'(%!3<1+<-<5'+)!/<--%(%+5%3!"%)=%%+!
283
thesemanuscriptsarefewandfarbetween,andthewitnessesaregenerallyveryclose.
One example where they differ appears in div 1049 ab 400:where D and S have
‘setentaedos’,Sshas‘veynteedos’,andthetextofE2isunclear.Giventheproximity
of thewitnesses in themajority of the other variants, I would suggest that this is
probablyascribalerror.
ThemajorityofthegapsinthetranscriptionofE2,thatistosaywherethetextofthe
manuscript imageswas illegible, and this illegible text could not be deciphered by
membersoftheEstoriateamwhoexaminedE2inperson,203weretheresultofdamage
tothemanuscript,obscuringthetext.Therearefoursidesinparticularwiththemost
damage,leadingtopocketsofvariantssubstitutedfromothermanuscripts:321r,328v,
329rand336v.Fromthemanuscriptimageitappearsthatthismaybewaterdamage.
ThefirstfoliowithmoredamagethantheothersthatformtheCPSFis321r.Thisisthe
startofquire43withinthecodexofE2,andwherethefourteenth-centuryhandtakes
overandcompletestheCPSF.Thenextfoliowithmoredamagethanmostotherfolios
isattheendofquire43,and329r,whichisalsodamaged,isthefirstfolioofquire44,
and 336v is the final folio in this quire. Thiswould suggest that these folioswere
damagedbeforethequireswereattachedtogetherintoonecodex.
203EnriqueJerez,RicardoPichelandAengusWardexaminedthemanuscriptinpersoninDecember2015andMarch2016andcheckedanytranscriptionqueries.RicardoPichelwasthescholarwhoexaminedthefoliosrelatingtotheCPSFwithinE2.
284
3.3.3Version3:ModernEnglishtranslationwithannotations204
Asanexampleofwhataneditorofanelectroniceditionmaychoosetoincludeinhis
or her edition, I have included a translation of a short section of the CPSF. As an
exemplar,justonechapterofthetexthasbeentranslated,butaneditormaychooseto
translatemoreorevenall of a text, according to theperceivedneedsofher target
audience.205The target audience I have translated for is an undergraduate student
studying topics such as medieval Spanish historiography or history, or more
specificallyAlfonsoX,thetextsfromorderivedfromtheAlfonsinetaller,theEstoria,
orSanFernando.Manyofmychoiceswhentranslatingreflectthistargetaudience,as
Iwillshowlaterinthischapter.IhavetailoredthistranslationfortheneedsIperceive
anundergraduatestudentwithinHispanicStudiesmaybelikelytohave,althoughthe
translationcouldalsofeasiblybeusedbyotherinterestedreaderswhomayormay
notbestudying,andmaysimplybe interested intheEstoriaortheCPSForrelated
topics.
Thetranslatedchapterisnumber1057.Asasinglechapter,thisexampleislong,and
appearsinE2overalmostthreefullfolios.ThiswasoneofthereasonswhyIfeltthis
wouldbeagoodchoicetotranslate,asitwouldgivemesufficientmaterialonwhich
tocommentforthepurposesofthisthesisexaminingthepracticeofelectronicediting,
204AprintversionofthetranslatedexcerptoftheCPSF,withouttheglossaryannotations,andwithashortdiscussionbasedonChapterThreeofthisthesis,hasrecentlybeenacceptedforpublicationinXanthos, vol. I, a new journal for postgraduate students of language and literature, based at theUniversityofExeter:PollyDuxfield,TheCrónicaparticulardeSanFernando:ChapterofthesiegeandtheconquestofCórdoba–atranslationanddiscussion,Xanthosvol.I(forthcoming).205Iproducedthetranslation,butwithsignificantsupportfromAengusWard.IwouldalsoliketosincerelythankEnriqueJerezandChristianKusi-ObodumfortheirhelpandsuggestionswhenIwasintheprocessoftranslatingthetextintoModernEnglish.Anyerrorsthatremainare,ofcourse,myown.
285
whilststill beingoneself-containedblockwithin thenarrativeof the chronicleand
feasiblyusefulformorethanjustthisthesis.Thecontentofthechaptertellsthestory
of the siege and conquest of Cordoba, detailing the role of the banished nobleman
LorenzoSuárezandhowheactedasadoubleagenttohelpFernandoconquerthecity,
andasaresultwaspardonedbytheking forhispreviousbehaviour. I felt that the
content of the chapter was interesting enough to conceivably be included in an
undergraduatemodulesuchastheoneIenvisagedwhentranslating,particularlysince
theconquestofCordoba,theoldcapitalofal-Andalus,wasoneofthemostsignificant
eventsintheFernando’sReconquestcampaign.206Furthermore,theforegroundingof
anoblemaninthechaptermadethesectionrepresentativeofmuchoftherestofthe
CPSF,accordingtoFernándezGallardo’saforementioneddescriptionofthestyleofthe
chroniclewherethenobilityareseentoplayakeyroleforpropagandisticpurposes
withinthecontextinwhichtheCPSFwasfirstwritten,207whichagainmadethechapter
selectionappropriateforthetargetaudiencewhenstudyingtheCPSF,thehistoryof
Castile-Leon,theReconquestorthehistoriographyoftheperiod.
ThetranslationisbasedprimarilyonthetextofE2.OnlyincaseswhereE2isillegible
haveIincludedtextfromSsorthePCG.Asinthereader’sversion,Itookthedecision
nottodrawattentioninthetranslatedtexttosectionswhichwerenotdirectlyfrom
E2,asIconsideredthatthismaybemoreinformationthanmembersofmyintended
target audiencewould require. The translation is therefore a composite of several
manuscripts,withE2asthebasetext.Asabove,notstatinginthetranslationwhere
206ManuelGonzálezJiménez,FernandoIIIelSanto:ElreyquemarcóeldestinodeEspaña,(Seville:FundaciónJoséManuelLara,2006),p.157207FernándezGallardo,258
286
text has come from manuscripts other than E2 could be considered by some as
removinginformationthatsomescholarswouldprefertohavewhenusinganedition,
but Iwould argue that the level of scholarwho is using a translation intomodern
English in place of the other versions included in the edition,would be unlikely to
requirethislevelofdetailedinformationabouttheprovenanceofparticularphrases
inthetext.Inthestudents’introductiontothetranslationIhavemadereferencetothe
factthisthistranslationcomesfromseveralmanuscripts,butIhavechosennottogo
intogreatdetailorspecificsonthisasIconsideredthatdoingsowouldovercomplicate
thematter for this particular intended audience. Any student or other user of the
translationwhowasso inclinedwouldbeable toaccesstheothervariationsof the
electronic edition of this chapter, and could find this information there. In a print
editionaneditormaychoosetouseasystemsuchasfootnotingtomakeclearwhere
translatedtextdoesnotcomefromthebasetext,but Iwouldarguethat this isnot
necessaryinanelectronicedition,sinceonthesamewebsitewillbeavailableseveral
versionsoftheedition.Theseversionscanevenbecomparedonscreeninawaythat
wouldnoteasilybepossiblewhencomparingseveraldifferentprintededitions.
!
!B_^!
!
6;G<C9!`!45(%%+36,)!36,=<+1!6,=!)6%!)('+37')<,+!5'+!"%!(%'/!<+!&'('77%7!=<)6!,)6%(!?%(3<,+3!,-!)6%!%/<)<,+!R!)6<3!%G'*&7%!<3!)6%!(%'/%(\3!?%(3<,+I!M+!)6%!)('+37')<,+8!<)%*3!=<)6!17,33'(#!%G&7'+')<,+3!'(%!6<167<16)%/!<+!"72%8!'+/!)6%!17,33'(#!%+)(#!<3!'?'<7'"7%!'3!'!*,23%J,?%(!",GI!F6%!1(%#!",G!36,=+!6%(%!<3!)6%!17,33'(#!%+)(#!-,(!j:+/ÅL'(\I!
!
M+!)6%<(!&(<+)%/!)('+37')<,+!,-!)6%!D,%=".(-.,3(0.*38!$'*<'+!AI!4*<)6!'+/!;%7%+'!@2--%(#!
6'?%! '73,! )('+37')%/! &(<*'(<7#! -(,*!,+%! )('+35(<&)<,+! ,-! ,+%!*'+235(<&)8! "2)! 6'?%!
(%-%((%/! ),!,)6%(!*'+235(<&)3! -,(!?'(<'+)3!'+/! ),!*,/%(+!%/<)<,+3!,-! )6%! 56(,+<57%8!
=<)6!)6%!'<*!,-!'56<%?<+1!)6%!*'G<*2*!&,33<"7%!5,6%3<,+!'+/!<+)%77<1<"<7<)#!-,(!)6%<(!
)('+37')<,+IBC_!F6%#! /,! +,)! 3)')%! <+! )6%! )%G)! %G'5)7#! =6<56! )%G)! 5,*%3! -(,*!=6<56!
*'+235(<&)n!)6%#!1<?%!)6%<(!<+)%+/%/!'2/<%+5%!'3!6<3),(<'+38BCE!'+/!)6%<(!)('+37')<,+!<3!
&(<+)%/8!3,!<)!=,27/!"%!/<--<527)!-,(!(%'/%(3!),!56%5H!-,(!)6%*3%7?%3!=6<56!)%G)!<3!-(,*!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!BC_!;%7%+'!@2--%(#8!jO,)%3!,+!)6%!F('+37')<,+\8!$'*<'+!AI!4*<)6!'+/!;%7%+'!@2--%(#!X)('+37'),(3Y8!@<.(M11J(1E(C..-3(1E(\'B.3(G(1E(N"'F1$(U(N(@"'$3,'*%1$(1E(*<.(Q.-%.;',(!'*','$(07<"(%!/%73!Z%)3!XZ'(+6'*h!:361')%8!BCCaY8!&&IDDJDb8!&IDB!BCE!@2--%(#8!&IDB!
288
whichsource.Thissupportsmydecisiontoprovideacompositetranslationwithout
markingwherethetextcomesfromadifferentmanuscript.
IhavetranslatedintomodernEnglishratherthanattemptingtotranslateintoanolder
formofEnglish, includingusingmodernEnglishsyntax.This isbecauseauserof a
modernisedtranslationsuchasthisismostlikelyusingitbecausetheyfindthetextof
the witness, of the transcription or even of the regularised collated edition
inaccessible.ForsomeusersthismaybebecausetheyarenotSpanish-speakers,but
for the specific target audience of my translation, undergraduate students within
HispanicStudies,thismaybebecausethemedievalCastilianisinaccessibletothem
before they feel they fully understand themeaning of the text. Reading the text in
translationmaywellensurethatthemeaningisclearinthestudent’smind,sotheyare
thenable toaccessthemedievalCastilianmoreeasily.Althoughtranslating intoan
olderformofEnglishmayhavealevelofromanticism,andmayretainthehistorical
feel of reading a medieval manuscript, it would also introduce further issues in
understanding,sothetranslationwouldfallshortofitsaimtoactasastepping-stone
for students toaccess theSpanish-languageversionsof theeditionwherepossible.
ThereisalsothefactthatthischroniclewasnotwritteninEnglishatthetime,norto
myknowledgewas it translated intoEnglish in themedievalperiod. Ifonewereto
translateintoanolderformofEnglishthenitwouldfollowthatthiswouldbeaform
reminiscentofthefourteenthcentury,sincethebasetextofthistranslationdatesto
thisperiod.Fourteenth-centuryEnglishhasmanymoredifferencestomodernEnglish
thanfourteenth-centuryCastiliandoestomodernCastilian,andtranslatingintothis
styleofEnglishwouldstillbejustasartificialastranslatingintomodernEnglish,with
289
theaddeddifficultythatIasthetranslatoramnotanativeorevenaskilledspeakerof
fourteenth-centuryEnglish,andnorarethereadersofmyintendedaudience.There
seemstobenostrongargumenttotranslatethischapterintoanyolderformofEnglish,
other than one based on romantic reasoning, which would be impractical for the
intended audience and intentionsof this translation. I have however, attempted to
maintainanallusiontothemedievalstyleoftheoriginaltext,ratherthantransposing
allofthetextintoapurelyModernEnglishstyle.ThisissimilartothewaythatBuffery
statestheyhaveaimedto‘remaintruetotheflavouroftheking’snarrative’intheir
translationoftheLlibredelsFeyts.210DiscussingherEnglishtranslationofsectionsof
Froissart’sChroniques,KeiraBorrilladdressesthispointeloquently:
Therehasbeenapersistenttensionbetweentherequirementtocreateanew,up-to-datetranslationwhilstretainingFroissart’scharacteristicregister,butwithoutslippingintoanarchaicformofspeechor,evenworse,amock-medievalsociolect.[…]Thekeyobjectiveforthistranslatorwastocreateprosethatwouldbereadilycomprehensibletothereadershipenvisaged,withouteitherdumbingdownorindulginginarchaiclexisorsyntax.211
Throughoutmyowntranslation,IhaveusedBorrill’sapproachasamodel.
Following similar reasoning, I have introduced modern English capitalisation and
punctuation, since amodern readerwould expect to see these in a text inmodern
English.Includingfeaturessuchasthisalsohelpsreaderstounderstandthetextand
makesitclear,forexample,whichwordsarepropernouns,andwhoissayingwhatin
occasionswherethereisdialogue.
210Buffery,p.13211KeiraBorrill,‘TranslationPolicy’,PeterAinsworthandGodfriedCroenen(eds.),TheOnlineFroissart,version1.5(Sheffield:HRIOnline,2013),https://www.hrionline.ac.uk/onlinefroissart/apparatus.jsp?type=context&context=translation_policy[accessed07/11/2017]
290
One aspect of translating medieval texts intoModern English that is always more
difficult than one may at first imagine is that of naming policy. Borrill describes
creating a naming policy for her translation as a ‘thorny issue’: opting for English
versionswas forherunviable,sincenotallnamescouldbeAnglicised,andshehas
insteadaimedtousethesourcelanguagewherepossible.212Inpracticethismeansthat
wecan seeexamples suchas ‘Flanders’, ‘Ghent’ and ‘Scotland’ appearingexactlyas
writtenhere,whilstwereadofapersonnamed‘Tête-Noire’(ratherthanBlack-Head),
Froissart’s first name iswritten as ‘Sir Jehan’, but there is a groupwhose name is
translated in the text, and appears as the ‘White Hoods’. 213 Her translations are
searchable foranthropnymsand toponyms,214soeach item is consistentwith itself
eachtimeitappears,butthereisinconsistencyinthelanguageusedforpropernouns
asagroup.Thisisnotacriticism,butareflectiononthewaythatnamingpolicy is
certainlynotstraightforwardwhentranslatingfrommedievalvernaculartoModern
English.WithBorrill’schoices(andtheeffectsofthese)inmind,foranthroponymsI
have usually regularised to the versions of the names used by Manuel González
Jiménez in his bookFernando III el Santo,215sincewithin themanuscript there are
orthographicvariationsevenamongstthenameofthesameperson.Forexample,in
themanuscriptwefindthefirstnameofLorenzoSuárezappearingas‘llorenço’(ab
4200), ‘lloreço’ (ab 4800), ‘llorençio’ (ab 5600), and ‘llorenco’ (ab 6900). The
212Borrill,para.6
213Borrill,(translator).AllexamplesherearetakenfromhertranslationofBookII,translatedfromBesançonBM,ms.865214Borrill,para.6215GonzálezJiménez,FernandoIIIelSanto,pp.152-159
291
regularisedversionsofthenamesusedbyGonzálezJiménezarewidelyaccepted,so
whereverpossible Ihave followedhis choices in therationale thatdoingso should
makeiteasierforusersoftheeditioniftheychoosetolookupchroniclecharactersfor
further information, bearing in mind that my intended audience is students. One
exceptionisthespellingofIbnHūd:GonzálezJiménezisinconsistent,usingbothAbén
HudandIbnHud.ForconsistencyIhaveusedIbnHūd,as this is farmorecommon
online,andIwouldexpecttheintendedaudienceofthistranslationtosearchonline
for aspects of the text that they need more information about. Furthermore,
O’Callaghan,forexample,usesthespellingIbnHūd.216Itookthedecisiontoregularise
toponymstotheirmodernSpanishequivalent,butIhavenotusedtheEnglishversions
ofplacenames.ThisdiffersfromtheapproachtakenbySmithandBuffery,whohave
used English versions of proper nouns, in the case of both kings and toponyms,
whereverpossible,andwheretherearenoEnglishversionstheyhaveusedModern
Catalanversions.217Imadethisdecisionwithmyintendedaudienceclearlyinmind,as
Iconsideredthat thetypeofstudentwhowouldbeusingthis translationwouldbe
mostlikelytobeastudentofHispanicStudiesorofIberianhistoryorhistoriography,
even if this is as part of a course on medieval history and not within a Modern
Languages context, and in themajorityof caseswouldbe likely tobe familiarwith
Spanish-style place names. In the case of ‘el Axerquía’, like in the other cases of
toponyms,IhaveusedthemodernSpanishspellingratherthanthatincludedinthe
manuscript,butsincethisplaceisspecifictoCordoba,andunderstandingwhereand
216JosephO’Callaghan,ReconquestandCrusadeinMedievalSpain(Philadelphia:UniversityofPennsylvaniaPress,2003)p.170217Buffery,pp.12-13
292
whatitisiskeytounderstandingtheChristians’strategytoconquerCordoba,Ihave
alsoexplaineditssignificanceinamouse-overexplanatorynote.
Usingasystemofmouse-overboxes,Ihaveprovidedannotationsthatshouldfunction
tomakethecontentofthetextmoreaccessibletomytargetaudience,explainingor
contextualisingvariouspointsinthetext.Thisisthesortofinformationthatwould
traditionallyhavebeenincludedasfootnotesorendnotesinstudents’printeditions.
Mouse-overnoteshaveanadvantageoverprintedendnotesastheuserdoesnothave
to turnapage toaccess thenotes,which candisrupt the flowof reading, andover
printedfootnotesasthelengthoffootnotesisrestrictedbythespaceavailableonthe
page,withouttheeditorintroducingtextualnoisewhichcanalsodisrupttheflowof
reading.Includingthenotesasmouse-oversmeansthatuserscanchoosetoaccessthe
notesornot,astheycouldchoosetoreadprintednotesornot,andinpedagogicterms
are able to self-differentiate by deciding whether or not they need to read the
supplementarymaterialabouteachspecificpoint.Itemsthathaveamouse-overnote
includetoponymsandanthroponymsthatideallyastudentwouldunderstandinorder
to effectively and fully comprehend the text. Additionally, specifically chosen items
whichmayrequirecontextualisationtoensureastudent’sunderstandinghavealso
beenincluded,suchasexplainingtheterm‘Moor’,andthesignificanceofthecitywalls
intheplantoconquerCordoba.
Ihadconsideredlinkingsomeofthemouse-overstoWikipediaarticlesrelatedtothe
contentsofthenotes,andIappreciatethatmanyusersofthetranslationmaybelikely
toclickstraightontoWikipediatoresearchsuchitemsanyway,however,Ieventually
decidedagainstlinkingdirectlytothearticlesaspartofthemouse-overbubbles.This
293
isnotbecauseof academic snobbery: a2005studyby the scientific journalNature
revealed a similar level of accuracy onWikipedia to Encyclopaedia Britannica (an
outcomethatBritannicahasdisputed,ascouldbeexpected),218andotherlaterstudies
havefoundsimilarresults,219butWikipediais,ofcourse,awiki,andcanthereforebe
changedandupdatedbyanyone,leavingitopento‘maliceorignorance’.220WhilstI
recognise the usefulness ofWikipedia as a starting point to researching any topic,
particularly for undergraduate students suchas those forwhom this translation is
based, I believe that linking directly to it in a scholarly edition may suggest an
underservedendorsementofmaterialwhichcouldbeeditedatanystage, including
oncethedigitaleditionoftheCPSFislive.
InthetranslationIhaveretainedtheidentificationnumberingforeachtextualblock
withinthechapterinorderthattheusercouldeasilycomparethetranslationwiththe
correspondingtextinthetaggedtranscriptionsorintheregularisedcollatededition.
WhilstthiscouldhavehadsyntacticimplicationsinEnglish,sincemodernEnglishand
medievalCastiliansyntaxareclearlydifferentfromoneanother,inthiscasestudyit
hasnotbeensodifferentas toadverselyaffect thesyntaxof thetranslation,whilst
retainingthenumberingofthesyntacticblocks.
218JimGiles,‘Internetencyclopaediasgoheadtohead’,Nature,15/12/2005,lastupdated28/03/2006http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v438/n7070/full/438900a.html?foxtrotcallback=true[accessed10/10/2017]219NatalieWolchova,‘HowAccurateisWikipedia?’LiveScience,24/01/2011,https://www.livescience.com/32950-how-accurate-is-wikipedia.html[accessed10/10/2017]220BillThompson,‘WhatisitwithWikipedia?’BBCNews,16/12/2005,http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4534712.stm[accessed10/10/2017]
294
In the students’ introduction to the translation Ihave suggested that studentsmay
choose not to quote directly from the translation, but rather they could use the
translationtoensuretheyunderstandthetextandthenusetheidentificationnumbers
to find the corresponding section in the transcription or the regularised collated
editionandquotefromthere.221Clearlyitwouldbeuptoindividualstudentswhether
tofollowthisadvice,butthesuggestionhasbeenmadetoencouragestudentstouse
morethanjustthistranslatedandmodernisededition,andtoconsideritastepping-
stonetoaccesstheversionsoftheeditionthatareclosertotheoriginaltext.Inprinted
editions itwouldbemoredifficult forstudents touseamodernisedtranslation for
meaningbutquotefromamoretraditionaledition,otherthaninparalleltexteditions.
Onedisadvantageofaparalleltextinaprinteditionisthatbecauseofitsnature,the
textappearstwice.Thismakestheprintededitiontwiceaslongandthereforemore
expensiveforpublisherstoproduce.Anelectroniceditiondoesnotsufferfromthis,
sinceatthepointofusetheeditionisnolarger,andthepossibilitytoviewmultiple
versionsoftheeditiononscreenmeanthattheuserisabletousethetextasaparallel
text if they should choose to do so. It is alsopossible for theuser todecidewhich
version(s) of the edition to compare, such as themodernised translationwith the
expandedtranscription,thediplomatictranscriptionorthemanuscriptimage,whilst
inaprinttheusercanonlyaccesstheversion(s)theeditorhaschosentoincludeinthe
edition.Ausercould,ofcourse,comparemorethanoneprintededition,oraprinted
parallel textwitha secondprint edition,but inpractical terms thiswouldbemore
difficultthanitistosimplychoosemorethanonevisualisationonthesamescreen.
221See<estoria.bham.ac.uk/cpsf/about.html>[accessed23/06/2018]
295
3.3.4Manuscriptimages
Onincludingimagesofthemanuscriptswithinadigitaledition,PatrickSahleisclear: While printed editions, due to economic restrictions, usually come without
facsimiles as a visual counterpart to the typographic text, digital editionsusuallystartwithvisualrepresentations,areindeedexpectedtoprovidethisevidence, and where they do not, they need to justify the absence of thisfeature.222
Helaterstates,‘thepresentdayusertendstoexpectthevisualevidenceasamatterof
courseandmightbevexedbyitsabsence’.223 OnthispointIamincompleteagreement
with Sahle. The opportunity to provide, or at least link to digital images of the
manuscriptisoneofthekeydifferencesbetweenprintanddigitaleditions,andareso
oftenincludednowadaysthatratherthantheirpresencebeingseenasabonus,their
absence would be more remarkable and annoying for users. I have included
manuscript images of manuscripts D, S, and Ss, which I used when preparing the
various versions of the digitalCPSF, as this is permitted by the Creative Commons
licences underwhich the images are provided for public usage by their respective
libraries. Ihavenotbeen able to include imagesofF, as it isprovidedundera ‘no
derivatives’ Creative Commons licence. I can, however, provide a hyperlink to the
imagesofF.Unfortunately,theimagesofE2arenotcurrentlywithinthepublicdomain,
soIcanneitherincludethesewithinthedigitaledition,norcanIprovideuserswitha
linktotheimagesonanexternalsite.
222SahleinDriscollandPierazzo,p.27 223SahleinDriscollandPierazzo,p.29
296
Ideally,adigitaleditionwouldalwaysincludemanuscriptimagesofanytranscribed
textforseveralreasons.Withthebestwillintheworld,notranscription,evenonewith
as much palaeographic detail as possible at this time within the confines of
technologicalpossibilities,couldeverrecreatetheintricatedetailofthepalaeography
within amanuscript.224A scholar using a digital edition to researchmay choose to
consultthemanuscriptimagesforclarificationofqueriessuchastheextenttowhich
aneditorhasexercisedherright toeditorial judgementbutwherethescholar-user
maynotbeincompleteaccordancewiththesedecisions.Apalaeographicalresearcher
maydesiretoseetheimagestoappreciatetheintricaciesofthehand,anda(socio-
)historical-linguistmaywishtoexamineinclosedetailforhimselftheabbreviations
and expansions included in the original, rather than relying on the transcriptions
createdbytheeditorandtranscribersinvolvedinpreparingtheedition.Forusersof
the edition, themost straightforwardway tobe able to consultmanuscript images
wouldbetodirectlyincludethemwithinthedigitaleditionitself.Editorsare,ofcourse,
requiredtoobtainpermissiontousethedigital imagesofmanuscriptswithintheir
editions,whichisnotalwaysgranted.Theneedtoobtainpermissiontouseimagesis
notanewrequirement,noritislimitedtopurelydigitalworks,aseditorsandauthors
of printed works have long been bound by the legal necessity to be granted the
appropriate permission to use images belonging to another within their works.
However,atthecurrenttime,highqualityimagesarefarmorecommonthantheyhave
everbeenbefore,andgiventhataneditorofadigitaleditionisnotrestrictedbyspace
inthesamewaythataneditorofaprintededitionis,adigitaleditorisfarmorelikely
224Duxfield,‘ThePracticalities’,77;Wemustalsorememberthat,forreasonsdescribedinChapterOne,describedinChapterOne,whereverpossible,theeditorshouldconsulttheoriginalmanuscriptratherthanrelyingsolelyonmanuscriptimages,evenwhentheseareofextremelyhighquality.
297
towishtoincludemanuscriptimages,oratleastlinkstothelocationofthemanuscript
images on another website, within his or her digital edition. When permission to
includeimagesindigitaleditionscannotbeobtained,thenextbestthingshouldbeto
linktoanexternalsitewhereausercanfindtheimagestranscribed.Thisis,however,
likely todisappointusers,andcan limit theextent towhich,andways inwhichthe
edition can be used. As mentioned above, Parker describes how including digital
imagesofthemanuscriptwithindigitaleditionsmeansthatanyeditorialdecisionscan
nowbescrutinisedingreatdetailbytheusers,andfarmoreeasilythanwaspossible
priortotheadventofhighqualityimagingsoftware,sufficientbandwidthtoinclude
suchimagesindigitaleditionsforusebyscholarsattheirownleisure,andbeforethis
withinprintededitions.Priortothis,Parkerexplains,theabilitytoscrutinisedecisions
at this levelwasrestrictedtothosewiththemeanstoviewthemanuscript itself,a
privilege afforded to very few. 225 Users are, however, becoming increasingly
accustomedtobeingabletoaccessmanuscriptimageswhenusingadigitaledition,so
whatwaspreviouslyaprivilegeforthefew,isbecominganexpectationofthemany.
Whenmanuscriptimagesareunavailabletothepublic,asisthecasewithE2,aneditor
shouldhavea strong justification for including transcriptionsof such texts in their
digital edition, since it is highly likely that a userwill want to scrutinise editorial
decisionsbyconsultingthemanuscriptimages,andwillbedisappointeduponfinding
theyareunabletodoso.ThejustificationforstillincludingtranscriptionsofE2inthe
digitaleditionoftheCPSFisthatE2formspartofthePCG,whichhasbecomelargely
synonymouswiththeEstoriadeEspannaitself,particularlyamongstthewiderpublic.
225Parker,‘ThroughaScreenDarkly’,409
298
Furthermore,E2formsthebasetextofthisedition,onwhichallothertranscriptions
are based, so to not include it would have necessitated a radical change in the
methodologyofcreatingthisedition.
3.3.5Opportunitiesforfurtherstudy
3.3.5.1Otherfeatures
HavingexplainedthefeaturesincludedinthedigitaleditionoftheCPSF,Iwouldlike
toturnnowtofeaturesthatIhavenotbeenabletoincludeatthepresenttime.Iwould
liketothinkthatiftimeandmoneyallow,Ioranotherscholarmaybeabletoinclude
someoralloftheminthefuture.
Thefirstofthesefeaturesisaconcordance.AsshowninChapter2,concordancescan
allowscholarstosearchforwordsthatappearinthetext,andinmanycasestoview
theircollocation.This isanothertool in thescholar’s toolbox,andcanshed lighton
researchquestionsbyallowingthestudyoflanguageuse.Aconcordancecanalsobe
usedasasearchfunction,anothertoolthatIwouldhavelikedtoaddtomyedition,but
whichhasnotbeenpossibleatthepresenttime.AsshowninChapterTwo,thelackof
aconcordancedidnotmeanthatIwasunabletosearchfortermswithinthetextofthe
CPSF,since,justastheeditionuserswillbe,IwasabletousetheXMLtranscriptions
tosearch,usingXMLeditingsoftware.ThismethodalsomeanIwasnotrestrictedby
the issue of expanded abbreviations, as I would bewhen using the existing HSMS
concordance. Some scholarswould appreciate this, and even if a concordancewas
299
provided, they may choose to search in thisway. Others, on the other hand, may
considerthetaskofdownloadingthetranscriptionsandusingspecificsoftwaretobe
daunting,sothoselessaccustomedtoworkingdirectlywithdatainXMLmaypreferto
useaconcordance.Iwouldalsohavelikedtohavebeenabletolinkmyeditiontothe
onomasticindexoftheEstoriadeEspannabeingpreparedbyFionaMaguireforthe
EstoriaDigital,butagainthishasbeenimpossiblewithintheever-presentconstraints
offinancesandtime.
Whilstmyeditionwillbe frozenasadigitallypublishedversion for thetimebeing,
perhapsforever,asadigitaleditionthereisnoreasonwhysuchfeaturescouldnotbe
addedtosupplementthecurrenteditioninthefuture.Similarly,thereisthepossibility
that I or other scholars could use the data from the present edition to add other
features,makeamendmentsortoworkinwaysnotyetenvisaged.Thisisoneofthe
benefitsofdigitaleditions.Suchbenefitsbringwiththemtheirownsetofhurdles,and
onecouldpotentiallyworkindefinitelyonaneditionsuchasthis,addingfeaturesand
makingchangesadinfinitum,but,asalways,withpracticalitiesinmind,aneditormust
stopsomewhere,andmustweighuptheperceivedbenefitofadditionalfeaturesand
changes against the investments required to make them happen. As ever, such
decisionsmustbemadewiththerequirementsofusersattheforefrontoftheeditor’s
mind.Asmentionedabove,usersareabletodownloadtheXMLtranscriptionsusedto
preparethiseditionfortheirownuse,providingthisisnon-commercial,andthatit
citesmyeditionappropriately,accordingtotheCreativeCommonsAttribution-Non-
commercial-Share-Alike4.0licence.
300
3.3.5.2Printedition
InthefutureIwouldliketousethepresenteditionasabasistoprepareaprintedition
oftheCPSF,althoughthiscouldnotbedonewithoutsignificantlossoffunctionalityof
many of the features within the digital edition, and significant changes to the
presentationofthetext.Forexample,aprinteditioncouldnotfeasiblycontainallof
theversionsoftheeditioncontainedinthedigitaledition,butratherwouldmostlikely
becomprisedonlyofthecriticaledition.Variantswhichappearinthedigitaledition
asmouse-overboxeswouldappearinprintusingthemoretraditionalfootnote,asis
customary.Similarly,aspectsofthepresentationwhichareshownusingfontcolour,
suchasexpansions,textualemendationsandvariants,wouldbeunlikelytoappearin
colour,giventhefactthatthiswouldhavesignificantcostimplications.Rather,they
wouldmostlikelyappearinitalics,followingconvention,andremindingusofSpence’s
argumentsaboveabouttheusageofitalicswithineditions,andtherequirementfor
the user to decipher what the italics connote in any given usage. It would be
prohibitivelyexpensivetoincludemanuscriptimagesinaprintededitiontothepoint
thattheywouldbeusefultousersforthescrutinyofanyeditorialdecisions,asthey
canbeusedindigitaleditions(wheremanuscriptimagescanbeprovidedeitherwithin
theeditionorviahyperlink),sothiswouldalsobelostinaprintedition.Indeed,itis
for thesereasonsthat Ichosetoedit theCPSFelectronically,andnot createaprint
editioninsteadofadigitaledition.
301
HavingpreparedadigitaleditionoftheCPSF,andarguedthroughoutthethesisofthe
benefitsofdigitaleditionsoverprinteditions,Iacknowledgethatmanyusersmaystill
choosetouseprintededitions.AsIhopetohaveshowninthisthesis,printededitions
aredifferent todigital editions in theirverynature, andassuch, creatingaprinted
editionfromadigitaleditionisnotassimpleasjustclickingprint.SinceIhavealso
arguedthataneditionshouldfulfiltheexpectationsandrequirementsofitsusers,I
recognisethatassomeuserswouldpreferaprintededition,anaturalextensiontothe
currentprojectwouldbetoprovideaprintededitionoftheCPSF.
302
CONCLUSION
IntheintroductiontothisthesisIstatedmyprimaryaimwas‘toexploreandexamine
thetheoryandpracticeinvolvedindigitallyeditingmanuscriptproseinCastilian’.In
ordertodothis,Iproducedacasestudy:adigitaleditionoftheCrónicaparticularde
SanFernando.Theconclusionstobedrawnfromthepresentstudy fall intoseveral
overlappingcategories.
Digitaleditionsforusersfromthedigitalage
InthisthesisIhopetohaveshownthatpreparinganeditionofamedievaltextthatis
digital rather than solely in print offers the digital editor many opportunities not
availabletotheirprintcounterparts.Thisisonlylikelytobecomemoretrueasdigital
toolscontinuetobedevelopedandrefined.Withthisinmindhowever,asWardpoints
out,weshouldrememberthatadigitaleditionisnota‘panacea’foralloftheillsofthe
printedition:1theyhavetheirownsetofcomplications,someofwhicharenotfaced
byprinteditors.Furthermore,asRobinsonremindsus,asdigitaleditors‘ourresources
arefinite,andrequireustochoosewhereweplaceoureffort’.2
ThroughoutthethesisIhaveexploredthebenefitsthatdigitaleditionscanhaveover
print editions, aswell as their drawbacks. Robinson argues that the tools a digital
1Ward,‘EditingtheEstoriadeEspanna’,1942Robinson,‘TowardsaTheoryofDigitalEditions’,106
303
editioncaninclude,whichprinteditionscannot,maysignifythestartofarevolution
intextualscholarship.3Idonotagree,butratherIfollowBordalejo,andherargument
that they do not represent a revolution. 4 The fact remains, however, that the
opportunitiesofhypertexttoolsfortheusersofdigitaleditionsareevidenceof,ifnot
arevolution,thenatleastasignificantdevelopmentoverprinteditionsintermsofwho
canuseeditions,whatfor,andhow.
Asmentionedabove,thosewhouseprinteditionstendtobereferredtoasreaders;for
digitaleditionstheyareusers.Thisismorethanjustsemantics:readersarepassive–
aneditionispresentedtothem,andtheyreadit.Users,ontheotherhand,aremore
activeintheprocess:theyaccesstheeditionasatool,andadaptitfortheirownneeds.
The riseofdigital editionshasmade theseusers intomoreactive consumersof an
edition,andhasthereforechangedusers’expectations.Itisnotenoughnowtopresent
a digitised edition – for all intents and purposes a print edition, but on a screen.
Contemporaryusersexpecthypertexttools.Theyexpecttobeabletomanipulatethe
editiontomeettheirneedsasfaraspossible–theyexpecttheincreasedlevelofuser-
controlthatdigitaleditionscanoffer.WesawabovewithGabler’sUlysses,thatwhere
userexpectationsarenotmetbyanedition,itistheeditionthatisperceivedtobeat
fault.Asdigitaleditorsaimingtocreateeditionsthatwillbeused,weshouldaimto
meetourusers’expectationsandrequirementswheneverwecan.
3Robinson,‘TheDigitalRevolutioninScholarlyEditing’,p.1814Bordalejo‘DigitalversusAnalogue’,52-73
304
Inpractice,thishasaffectedthewayinwhichIhaveeditedtheCPSF:theusercanselect
whichversionof theedition sheaccesses, andevenwithin this she can sometimes
decideonotheroptions,accordingtoherneeds–forexample,tousethediplomaticor
the expanded transcription, to read glossary annotations or not, and to hear the
reader’sversionreadaloudornot.Todecidewhattoincludeinanedition,aneditor
requires a clear understanding of our users’ needs and expectations, taking into
account the context, textual transmission and significance of the material. This is
exogenous,orextra-textualinformation.
Theeditedtextandexogenousinformation:toincludeornottoinclude?
Thecentralargumentrunningthroughthisthesisisthatthedrivingmotivationbehind
alleditorialdecisionswhenpreparingadigitaleditionofamedievaltextshouldalways
be theperceivedneedsofboth contemporaryusersandas faras is feasible, future
usersoftheedition.Toenablesuchdecisionstobemade,theeditormusthaveasolid
understandingofthecircumstancesofproductionoftheoriginalmaterial,itstextual
transmissionovertime,andtheothereditions, ifany,of thetextbeingedited.This
ensuresasfaraspossiblethattheeditorcancreateaneditionthatwillfulfiltheneeds
of thosewishing to use the edition:whatuserswant in an editiondependson the
natureofthetexttobeedited,anditssignificance.Ihavearguedthatwithoutediting
inthelightofthisexogenousinformation,weriskfailingtofulfilourusers’needsand
expectationsthroughomission,andcreatinganeditionthatwillnotbeusedtoitsfull
potential.Thishasinformedmyeditorialpracticeinthatithasenabledmetodecide
305
howtopresenttheeditedtextwithintheedition,andthereforehowtoeditit.Studying
thecontent,contextandtransmissionoftheCPSF,aswellasitsparentchronicle,the
EstoriadeEspanna,allowedmetoseethatasingle-witnessedition,oraneditingstyle
which discounts extra-textual information, would have been inappropriate for the
digitalCPSF,andwouldhavelimitedthepotentialuseoftheeditionforusers,forwhom
muchoftheinformationtheywouldhopetoseekinaneditionwouldbemissing.
Digitaleditionsandincreaseduserscrutiny
Alongsidetheextrauser-controlthatdigitaleditionsbring,usersexpecttobeableto
scrutiniseeditorialdecisionsmoreeasily–particularlywheneditorshave included
manuscriptimages,whichisbecomingafurtherexpectationofdigitaleditionusers.
Thisincreasedopportunityforandlikelihoodofuser-scrutinycouldbedauntingfor
editors, but can really only be a benefit for textual scholarship in general, since it
encouragesevendeeperthoughtaboutthechoiceseditorsmakeandtheimplications
thishasonboththeeventualeditionanditspotentialusage.Thewayinwhichthishas
manifesteditselfinthedigitalCPSFisthat,asiscustomary,Ihavebeenclearandopen
withthenormstowhichIhaveeditedforthevariouspurposes,butalsobyproviding
(orlinkingto)therawmaterialswherepossible,IshowthatIexpectandacceptthat
someuserswillwishtoconsultthesetoscrutinisemyeditorialdecisions.
306
Whoaredigitaleditionsfor?
AsSpencepointsout,a‘scholar’usingadigitaleditionmightbeaphilologist,alinguist,
a historian, or from another background. All of these users have overlapping, yet
differingneedsfromanedition.5Ofcourse,notalloftheusersofadigitaleditionare
scholars,andthesenon-expertusershavetheirownrequirementsandexpectations.
Yet,iftheeditionhasbeenpreparedcarefully,takingintoaccountthesignificanceof
thetextbeingedited,andthereforethereasonswhy itmightbestudied,and if the
editionispreparedinsuchawaythatthedatacreatedcouldlaterbeusedinwaysnot
includedintheoriginaledition,thereisnoreasonwhyadigitaleditioncouldnotfulfil
therequirementsofalloftheseusers,orgiverisetousesnotyetanticipated.6Since,as
described above, several versions of the edition can be includedwithin one digital
edition,whichisfarlesspossibleinprint,thepotentialaudienceforadigitaleditionis
farwiderthanforaprintedition.Furthermore,theInternetallowsmanymorepeople
toaccessadigitaleditionthancouldaccessaprintedition,andwithmoreuserscomes
awider range of user-requirements. This bringswith it questions ofwho a digital
editionisfor.
Ifthedatafortheeditioniscreatedinsuchawaythatallowsitselftobemanipulated
at a later stage in the edition’s development, that is, if as editors we aim in the
transcriptionstagenottolimittheeventualusageofthisdata,whilstbalancingthis
withtheever-presentconfinesoftimeandmoney,thensomerelativelyminoreditorial
5Spence,‘Sieteretos’,1566Spence,‘Sieteretos’,156
307
tasks(comparedwiththesignificantundertakingoftranscriptionandcollation)can
enableustopresentseveralversionsoftheeditionwithinthesamedigitaledition.As
such,wecanaimtomeettheexpectationsandrequirementsofasmuchaspossibleof
this wider potential audience. This, of course, is gleaned through an in-depth
understandingofboththetextualandextra-textualinformationrelatedtothematerial
beingedited.
Inpracticethismightmeanthat,asIhavedone,weprovidemorescholarlyversionsof
the edition, such as the collation and the critical edition, alongside less scholarly
versions, such as a reader’s text, accompanying audio files, and a translationwith
glossary.Sincethelessscholarly,morewidely-accessibleversionsoftheeditiondonot
detractfromthosemorescholarly,ormakethemanylessscholarly,wheretimeand
moneyallow,itwouldbedifficulttoargueagainsttheirinclusioninadigitaledition
withoutborderingon intellectualelitism.Throughoutthis thesis Ihavearguedthat
sincewecanincludeseveralversionsintheedition,andgiventhatthemanuscriptson
which we are basing our editions are part of our shared cultural heritage, digital
editionscanbeforeveryonewhowishestousethem,inawaythatisjustnotpossible
withprinteditions,giventhelimitationsofspaceontheprintedpage,andofthemoney
thatitwouldcosttoproducemuchlargerprinteditionscontainingseveralversionsof
theedition.
308
Theproductionofdataanditsusebyotherscholars
Afurtherbenefitofeditingdigitallyisthatthedataproducedbyaneditorcanhavea
usage wider than that of the original project. Digital editions can therefore work
towards building an even higher level of collaboration within academia. The raw
transcriptionsforthedigitalCPSFareavailablefordownload,accordingtotheCreative
Commonslicenceunderwhichtheywereproduced.Thismeansthatscholarscanwork
withthedatainwaysnotcateredforwithinmyedition,suchassearchtools,andfor
purposesthatneither I (norperhapseventhey)haveyet envisaged.Aneditionnot
prepareddigitally,orwhichusesdigitalmethodsbutispresentedonlyinprint,would
notbeabletosharedatainthisway.Scholarscould,ofcourse,contactmeandrequest
mydata,but this islesslikely tohappenthanif thedata isreadilyavailableonline,
withoutthisfurtherstep.
Furthermore, having produced the collation using the second iteration of Textual
Communitiesduringitssandboxstage,mydatawasabletohelpPeterRobinsonand
histeamidentifyaspectsofthesoftwarewhichrequiredtweaking,inorderforTextual
Communities tobe fully functioning for thepreparationofdigital editionsbyother,
laterscholars.Thesituationwas,ofcourse,symbiotic,asIhavediscussedabove.
309
Themethodologyofproducingdigitaleditions
InChapterOne Idiscussedandanalysed theuseof crowdsourced transcription for
digital editions. I concluded that crowdsourcing offers us a revolution in who can
produce transcriptions, with the support of experienced editors, and can be an
extremelyvaluablewayfornon-expertstoengagewiththetext,justatadifferentstage
initspreparationtoaccessingtheeditiononcelaunched.Byanalysingcrowdsourcing
in four projects: the Estoria Digital, Transcribe Bentham, RCCP and the IGNTP, I
concludedthatforcrowdsourcingtobesuccessful,severalfactorsmustbetakeninto
account, and that volunteers should be recruited, trained, praised and rewarded
appropriately.Suchfactorsincludethenatureofthetext(s)beingedited,thepurpose
oftheedition(andthereforetheleveloftaggingrequiredintranscriptions),andthe
backgroundofthevolunteers–whichis,ofcourse,cyclicallyinformedbythenatureof
thetextandthepurposeoftheedition.
That said, I also concluded that whilst potentially beneficial for all transcription
projectsintermsofincreasedimpactoftheprojectonthegeneralpublicoutsideof
academia, this benefit must be weighed up against the costs involved in the
infrastructurerequiredforcrowdsourcingtotakeplace,aswellasfortherecruitment,
training and retention of volunteers.With this inmind, I did not crowdsource the
transcriptionsforthedigitalCPSF,sincethecostsinvolvedwouldnotbeoffsetbythe
benefitstotheprojectorontheeventualoutcomeoftheedition.
310
Digitaleditionsandfuture-proofing
Theabovepoint that thedataandeditionsweproduce todaymayalsobeusedby
peopleinthefuturealsoremindsusoftheneedfordigitaleditionstoincludesome
leveloffuture-proofing,asfaraswecan,withourcurrenttools,andwithinthelimits
oftimeandmoney.Itisclearfromtherapidrateofprogressthatwehaveseeninthe
digitalworldevensincethestartofthiscenturythatthistrendwillcontinue,andthe
data produced todaywill need to be accessible in the future,most probably using
differenttools.Hereagain,wecanlooktoSpence,whooffersquestionswhichhaveyet
tobeanswered: ‘¿quiénpaga losservidores?;¿quién financiaelmantenimientodel
contenidoylafuncionalidaddeunrecursodigital,yparacuántotiempo?;¿cuálesson
losmodelosdesostenibilidadquelosustentan?’7Practically,fortheindividualeditor,
thismaymeansimply storing thedatausing thebest toolswehaveavailable tous
today,andtrustingfuturegenerationstousetheirincreasedtechnicalknowledgeto
not allow our work to fall into oblivion. Of course, this does assume that future
generationswillconsiderourworktobeofvalue,andworthkeeping.Thisis,perhaps,
amatterforanotherday.
7Spence,‘Sieteretos’,164
311
TheCPSF
ThedigitalCPSFwaspreparedasacasestudyforthepresentthesis.Thatisnottosay,
however,thatitsusefulnessshouldendhere.Rather,itishopedthattheeditionwill
beofusetootherscholarstostudytheCPSF,aswellasfornon-expertstoaccess,enjoy,
andlearnfromit.WiththisinmindIhaveaimedtoeditthechronicleinsuchaway
thatitcanbeusedbyawiderangeofusers:morescholarlyversionsoftheedition,
suchasthecollationandcriticaledition,arepresentedalongsidearegularisedversion
and an annotated translation. These various versions have different intended
audiences,andwillbeusedfordifferentpurposes.Neither,however,detractsfromthe
others,butrathertheyco-exist.Thisisabenefitofdigitaloverprinteditions,whereit
islesslikelythatsuchdifferingpresentationswouldbefoundinthesameedition.
ThedigitalCPSFwascreatednottoenablemetostudytheCPSFanddrawconclusions
forthepresentthesisthatallowusfurtherinsightsintothechronicle,butratherasa
practical application of the theory of digital editing. Creating the edition has
necessitatedmylookingintothecontentofthechronicle,itscontext,significanceand
textualtransmission,inordertounderstandwhomightwanttousetheedition,why,
andhow,sothat Icanaimtomeet theirneeds.Doingsohasenabledmetodrawa
conclusionaboutwhatexactlyconstitutestheCPSF,andhowthisrelatestothenotion
ofwork, as described above in this thesis. Iwill come to this point presently. The
purposeofmythesishasnotbeentoproduceastudyoftheCPSF,butrathertoprovide
atooltoallowotherscholarstodoso.Furthermore,IhaveusedthedigitalCPSFto
enablemetoputintopracticethetheoryofdigitaleditingfromChapterOne,inthe
312
lightoftheexogenousinformationaboutthechronicleinChapterTwoandthefirst
sectionsofChapterThree.
ThedigitalCPSFwillallowscholarstostudytheworkinwaysthathithertohavebeen
muchmoredifficult.Forexample,scholarswishingtostudythedifferencesbetween
witnessesstoredindifferentcitiescouldusethedigitalCPSFcollation.Withthistool
theycouldstudywhattextispresentinsomewitnesses,butmissingfromothers,if
therearepatternsthatcanbeseeninthisregard,andifso,whatconclusionscanbe
drawn.Whilstitisbeyondthescopeofthepresentthesistogoasfarastodrawthese
conclusions,inorderthatotherscholarscanusethedigitalCPSFtostudyaspectssuch
asthis,ithasbeennecessarytoeditthetextinsuchawayastofacilitatesuchpotential
research.ItiswiththisinmindthatacollationwaspreparedforthedigitalCPSF.
ThedigitalCPSFandeditorialculturalmores
ThroughoutthisthesisIhavearguedthat,whenpreparingadigitaledition,theeditor
shouldconsidertherequirementsandexpectationsoftheperceivedaudienceofthe
edition in terms of the editorial culture(s) towhich both themajority of the users
themselvesandthetextbeingeditedbelong.Thisisbecausetheeditorialmoreswithin
acultureprovideareceivedstandardagainstwhichallothereditionsaremeasured.
Thatisnottosaythatalleditionswithinagivencultureareentirelyrestrictedbyits
editorialnormsandexpectations,butthatwhenaneditionplacesitselftoofarfrom
these expectations itmay be perceived less favourably by its audience.Whilst the
313
objectiveofaneditionisnottowinpopularitycontests,neitherisittosimplyfulfilthe
needsoftheeditor’sego:editionswhicharepoorlyperceivedbytheiraudiencemay
notbeusedasmuchastheyotherwisemightbe,andthereislittlepointinmakingan
editionthatwillnotbeused.Withthisinmind,thecollationispresentedalongsidethe
criticaleditionoftheCPSF,createdinordertofulfiltheexpectationsandrequirements
ofanaudienceaccustomedtoeditionsofmedievalCastilianprose.AsIconcludedin
Section1.4,theseuserswouldexpecttofindacriticaleditionwhereveritispossible
fortheeditortoprovideone,incaseswherehehasbeenabletoconsultasufficient
numberandrangeofwitnesses.Tomeettheneedsofthewiderpotentialaudiencethat
an edition presented on the Internet is likely to have, in this case amore general,
interestednon-expert,Ihaveproducedaregularisedversionofthetext,aswellasa
translationofanexcerptintoEnglish.
TheCPSFandthenotionofwork
TheCPSFalsoenablesustoapplyRobinson’snotionofwork,asdescribedinChapter
One.Hisdefinitionis:‘theworkisthesetoftextswhichishypothesizedasorganically
related,intermsofthecommunicativeactswhichtheypresent’.8
Aswehaveseen,chapters1040to1045oftheCPSFinfourwitnesses(D,F,S,Ss),are
copiedbythesamehandastherestofthechronicle(rememberingthatFistruncated).
8PeterRobinson,‘TheDigitalRevolutioninScholarlyEditing’,B.Crostini,G.IversenandB.M.Jensen,(eds.),ArsEdendiLectureSeries,vol.IV(Stockholm:StockholmUniversityPress,2016)pp.181-207,p.197
314
However,thechangeofhandat1046inE2,suggeststhatthesectionfrom1040to1045
inthiswitnessisnottheCPSF,butrathertheEstoriadeEspanna.9Ashasbeenseen
above,thereisastrongargumenttobelievethatthetextuptochapter1060wasin
existencebefore1289,andthatitwasthetextcontainedintheoriginalfinalquireof
E2,whichisnowmissing.Wecanconclude,therefore,thatthesectionoftheEstoria
dealingwithFernandoIIIinchapters1040-1060wasinexistencearound1289.10Itis
unlikely that this text was conceived as a chronicle dedicated exclusively to one
monarch,sincethisisafeatureofhistoriographyfromafter1289.Insteaditismore
likelythatthenarrativedealingwithFernandoIIIwasconceivedasthefinalsectionof
theEstoria.11
HowthislinkstoRobinson’snotionofwork, is that towardstheendof thereignof
FernandoIV,someone,probablyFernánSánchezdeValladolid,12placesthesectionof
theEstoriarelatingtoFernandoIII,withwhatnowformsparttwooftheCPSF–the
seguimiento,ortheestoriacabadelante,ontothefoliosofE2wherethefinalquirehad
beenlost,andextendingthesectionaboutFernandoIIItotheendoftheseguimiento.
InmanuscriptsD,SandSsthesetwopartsareperceivedasthesamework–ortouse
Robinson’sterms–asexpressionsofthesamecommunicativeact.TheCPSFisawork,
accordingtothisunderstandingoftheterm,butuntilparttwoisadded,partoneisnot
consideredtobeseparatefromtheEstoriadeEspanna.
9Fernández-Ordóñez,‘Latransmisióntextual’,p.24310Catalán,DeAlfonsoXalCondedeBarcelos,32-8711FernándezGallardo,24812Fernández-Ordóñez,‘Latransmisióntextual’,p.243
315
Therelevanceofthisforthedigitaleditoristhatitmakesusquestionwheretostart
editing.IntheCPSFthequestionofwheretostopismorestraightforward,sincethe
work ends at the entombment of Fernando III; the case of editing the Estoria de
Espanna,forexample,ismoredifficult–shouldaneditorstopatchapter1040?1045?
Theendofthebasetextcodex,perhaps?Canthesametextbepartoftwoworks?It
alsobegsthequestionofwhetherwecanaccuratelydescribetheCPSFasfourteenth-
century,ifthefirsttwentychapterswereinexistenceby1289.Fernández-Ordóñezhas
stated that the Estoria chapters about Fernando III are a source for the CPSF, 13
althoughiftheyappearinotherwitnessesaspartoftheCPSF,andarerecognisedin
theseotherwitnessesaspartoftheCPSF,aretheyasourcefortheCPSF,orarethey
partoftheCPSF?InthisthesisIhavearguedthattheyareboththeCPSFandtheEstoria
–thetwochroniclesoverlap–andthatchapters1040to1060have,throughreception,
becometobeperceivedaspartofbothchronicles,thatis,bothworks.Withregardto
whethertheCPSF canaccuratelybedescribedas fourteenth-century, Iwouldargue
thatsincetheconceptofachronicleonlyaboutFernandoIII,aworkinitsownright,is
unlikely tohavecomeaboutuntilpart twoof theCPSFwasaddedtowhatwenow
consider to be part one, and as we believe this step took place in the fourteenth
century,thattheCPSFcanbeconsideredfourteenth-century,eventhoughitcontains
somethirteenth-centurymaterial.
***
13Fernández-Ordóñez,‘Latransmisióntextual’,pp.236-237
316
AlloftheseargumentshaveinformedtheeditorialdecisionsItookwhencreatingthe
digitalCrónicaparticulardeSanFernando,andtherationalebehindasmanyof the
decisionsaspossiblehavebeenexplainedabove.ThedigitalCPSFhasbeencreatedas
acasestudyforthisthesis,althoughIhaveaimedtocreateitinsuchawaythatitmight,
infuture,haveawiderusefulnessthansimplytoprovidefodderforanalysishere.
i
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Ager,Dennis,MotivationinLanguagePlanningandPolicy(Clevedon:MultilingualMatters,2001)Ainsworth,Peter,andGodfriedCroenen(eds.)TheOnlineFroissart,version1.5(Sheffield:HRIOnline,2013),http://www.hrionline.ac.uk/onlinefroissart[accessed24/01/2017]Ainsworth,Peter,andGodfriedCroenen(eds.)‘EditorialPolicy’,TheOnlineFroissart,version1.5(Sheffield:HRIOnline,2013),https://www.hrionline.ac.uk/onlinefroissart/index.jsp[accessed21/06/2017]Ainsworth,Peter,andGodfriedCroenen(eds.)‘CitingThisResource’,TheOnlineFroissart,version1.5(Sheffield:HRIOnline,2013),<http://www.hrionline.ac.uk/onlinefroissart/apparatus.jsp?type=context&context=citing_this_resource>[accessed28/02/2016]Ainsworth,Peter,andGodfriedCroenen(eds.)‘TechnicalAspects’,TheOnlineFroissart,version1.5<http://www.hrionline.ac.uk/onlinefroissart/apparatus.jsp?type=context&context=technical_aspects>[accessed18/02/2016]Ainsworth,Peter,andGodfriedCroenen(eds.)‘EditorialProject’,TheOnlineFroissart,https://www.dhi.ac.uk/onlinefroissart/apparatus.jsp?type=context&context=editorial_policy[accessed01/03/2018]Ansón,Francisco,FernandoIII:ReydeCastillayLeón(Madrid:Palabra,1998)Ascoli,AlbertRussell,DanteandtheMakingofaModernAuthor,(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,2008)AyalaMartínez,Carlosde,DirectricesfundamentalesdelapolíticapeninsulardeAlfonsoX:Relacionescastellano-aragonesas1252-1263(Madrid:AntiquaetMedievalia,1986)Ballesteros-Beretta,Antonio,AlfonsoXelSabio(Barcelona:SalvatEditores,1963)Bamford,Heather,andEmilyFrancomano,TheDigitalLibroProject:PerspectivesonDigitalManuscriptCulture,4thAnnualColloquiumoftheEstoriadeEspannaDigitalProject(UniversityofBirmingham,UK,13-15thDecember2016)Barton,Simon,AHistoryofSpain(Basingstoke:PalgraveMacmillan,2004)
ii
Bautista,Francisco,LaEstoriadeEspañaenépocadeSanchoIV:SobrelosreyesdeAsturias,PapersoftheMedievalHispanicResearchSeminar50(London:DepartmentofHispanicStudies,QueenMary,UniversityofLondon,2006)pp.7-12Bautista,Francisco,AlfonsoXelSabio:Cronología<http://www.cervantesvirtual.com/bib/bib_autor/alfonsoelsabio/pcuartonivela972.html?conten=cronologia>[accessed17/06/2014]Blake,Robert,‘SyntacticaspectsofLatinatetextsoftheEarlyMiddleAges’,inRogerWright,(Ed.)LatinandtheRomanceLanguagesintheEarlyMiddleAges(Paperbackedition)(Pennsylvania:PennsylvaniaStateUniversityPress,1996)pp.219-228Blecua,Alberto,LatransmisióntextualdeElcondeLucanor,(Barcelona:UniversidadAutónomadeBarcelona,1980)Blecua,Alberto,Manualdecríticatextual,(Madrid:EditorialCastalia,1983,2001)BárbaraBordalejo,‘ChapterIV–TheoreticalAspectsofTextualVariation’,TheManuscriptSourceofCaxton’sSecondEditionoftheCanterburyTalesandItsPlaceintheTextualTraditionoftheTales,(PhDThesis,DeMontfortUniversity,2002)pp.87-116Bordalejo,Bárbara,‘ThePhylogenyoftheTale-OrderintheCanterburyTales’(PhDthesis,NewYorkUniversity,2003)p.39-40<www.bordalejo.net/NYU/Chapter2.pdf>[accessed13/01/2016]Bordalejo,Bárbara,Appendices:C.TheCommediaProjectEncodingSystem,(2010)<http://sd-editions.com/AnaServer?commedia+6215691+viewarticle.anv+printdoc+1>[accessed18/2/2016]Bordalejo,Bárbara,“Whatismeantby‘editing’inthephrase‘socialediting’?”,Social,DigitalandScholarlyEditing,(UniversityofSaskatchewan,12thJuly2013),<https://www.academia.edu/4125893/What_is_Meant_by_Editing_in_the_Phrase_Social_Editing>[accessed2/3/2016]Bordalejo,Bárbara,‘TheTextsWeSeeandtheWorksWeImagine:TheShiftofFocusofTextualScholarshipintheDigitalAge,Ecdotica,10,(2013)64-76BárbaraBordalejo,TheCommediaProjectEncodingSystem,(2013)https://www.academia.edu/4131782/The_Commedia_Project_Encoding_System(accessed04/06/2018)Bordalejo,Bárbara,‘DigitalversusAnalogueTextualScholarshiportheRevolutionisJustintheTitle’,DigitalPhilology7.1(Spring2018),52-73
iii
Borrill,Keira,‘TranslationPolicy’,PeterAinsworthandGodfriedCroenen(eds.),TheOnlineFroissart,version1.5(Sheffield:HRIOnline,2013),https://www.hrionline.ac.uk/onlinefroissart/apparatus.jsp?type=context&context=translation_policy[accessed07/11/2017]Bowers,Fredson,‘SomePrinciplesforScholarlyEditionsbyNineteenth-CenturyAmericanAuthors’,StudiesinBibliography,17(1964)223-228BrañaPastor,JoséLuis,andAntonioRomaValdés,‘NotassobreunamonedadeAlfonsoXdeCastillaydeLeón’,Gacetanumismática142(2001)(PDFversion)1-5,http://www.numisane.org/Gaceta/GN142.pdf[accessed04/07/2014]Bucci,Richard,‘Tanselle’s“EditingWithoutaCopy-Text”:Genesis,Issues,Prospects’,StudiesinBibliography,56(2003-3004),1-44Buelow,Kenneth,andDavidMackenzie,ManualofManuscriptTranscriptionfortheDictionaryoftheOldSpanishLanguage(MadisonWisconsin:HSMS,1977)Buffery,Helena,‘NotesontheTranslation’,DamianJ.SmithandHelenaBuffery(translators),TheBookofDeedsofJamesIofAragon–ATranslationoftheMedievalCatalanLlibredelsFets(Farnham:Ashgate,2003),pp.11-14Buzzetti,Dino,andJeromeMcGann,‘CriticalEditinginaDigitalHorizon’,LouBurnard,KatherineO’BrienO’KeeffeandJohnUnsworth(eds.)ElectronicTextualEditing(NewYork:ModernLanguageAssociation,2006)<http://www.tei-c.org/About/Archive_new/ETE/Preview/mcgann.xml>[accessed2/3/2016]CalvoTello,José,emailtoHumanidadesDigitalesHispánicasMailingList(9thMarch2016)Campa,Marianodela,‘LaVersiónprimitivadelaEstoriadeEspannadeAlfonsoX:Edicióncrítica’AIH,ActasdelXIIICongresodelaAsociaciónInternacionaldeHispanistas(Madrid,6-11July1998),Vol.1(2000)59-72Campa,Marianodela,‘CrónicaparticulardeSanFernando’,CarlosAlvarandJoséManuelLucíaMegías(eds.),DiccionarioFilológicodeLiteraturaMedievalEspañola.Textosytransmisión.(Madrid:Castalia,2002)pp.358-363Campa,Marianodela,‘Crónicadeveintereyes’,Revistadeliteraturamedieval15:1,(2003)141-156,144-147,https://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/articulo?codigo=973303,[accessed29/08/2017]Cárdenas,Anthony,Alfonso’sScriptoriumandChancery:RoleofthePrologueinBondingtheTranslatioStudiitotheTranslatioPotestatishttp://libro.uca.edu/alfonso10/emperor7.htm[accessed10/07/2014]
iv
Carpenter,DwayneE,‘MinoritiesinMedievalSpain:TheLegalStatusofJewsandMuslimsintheSietePartidas’,RomanceQuarterly33:3(1986),275-287CarriónGutiérrez,JoséMiguel,ConociendoaAlfonsoXelSabio(Murcia:EditorialRegionaldeMurcia,1997)Castro,Américo,LarealidadhistóricaenEspaña,(Mexico:EditorialPorrúa,1954)Catalán,Diego,DeAlfonsoXalCondedeBarcelos:CuatroestudiossobreelnacimientodelahistoriografíaromanceenCastillayPortugal(Madrid:EditorialGredos,1962)Catalán,Diego,LaEstoriadeEspañadeAlfonsoX:Creaciónyevolución(Madrid:SeminarioMenéndezPidalandUniversidadAutónomadeMadrid,1990)Catalán,Diego,Delasilvatextualaltallerhistoriográficoalfonsí–Códices,crónicas,versionesycuadernosdetrabajo(Madrid:FundaciónRamónMenéndezPidal,UniversidadAutónomadeMadrid,1997)Causer,Tim,(@TimCauser),Tweet:‘@BabetteSmithI’llemailyouacopy!WefindthattheworksubmittedbyatypicalregularTranscribeBenthamvolunteerisexcellent,withrelativelyfewerrorsintranscription,andtheycanbecheckedquitequicklybyBenthamprojectstuff.Inshort,theworkofvolunteersisamazing.’Dated16thJanuary2018,https://twitter.com/search?q=transcribe%20bentham&src=typd[accessed15/10/2018]Causer,Tim,KrisGrint,Anna-MariaSichani,MelissaTerras,‘Makingsuchbargain’:TranscribeBenthamandthequalityandcost-effectivenessofcrowdsourcedtranscription’,DigitalScholarshipintheHumanities,2018,Offprint,1-21Causer,Tim,andMelissaTerras,‘‘ManyHandsMakeLightWork.ManyHandsTogetherMakeMerryWork’:TranscribeBenthamandCrowdsourcingManuscriptCollections’,Ridge,M.(Ed.)CrowdsourcingourCulturalHeritage(Farnham:Ashgate,2014)pp.57-88Causer,Tim,JustinTonraandValerieWallace,‘Transcriptionmaximized;expenseminimized?CrowdsourcingandeditingTheCollectedWorksofJeremyBentham’,LiteraryandLinguisticComputing27:2(March2012)119-137;MartinMoyle,JustinTonraandValerieWallace,‘ManuscriptTranscriptionbyCrowdsourcing:TranscribeBentham’,LiberQuarterly20(3/4)(March2011)347-356Chabás,José,‘TheDiffusionoftheAlfonsineTables:ThecaseoftheTabulaeResolutae’,PerspectivesonScience10:2(2002),168-178Chabás,José,andBernardR.Goldstein,TheAlfonsineTablesofToledo,(Dordrecht,Boston,London:KluwerAcademicPublishers,2003)
v
Clagett,‘HelenL,LasSietePartidas’inTheQuarterlyJournaloftheLibraryofCongressVol.22No.4(October1965)341-346Coates(Hazbun),Geraldine,‘’Etsidestomenguas’:decadenciaimperialenlaEstoriadeEspaña’,FranciscoBautista(ed.)ElRelatohistoriográfico:textosytradicionesenlaEspañaMedieval,PapersoftheMedievalHispanicResearchSeminar48(London:DepartmentofHispanicStudies,QueenMary,UniversityofLondon,2006)pp.103-121Cohen,Patricia,’ScholarsRecruitPublicforProject’,NewYorkTimes(27thDecember2010),http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/28/books/28transcribe.html[accessed13/11/2017]Croenen,GodfriedHartleyMillerandSofieLoomans,ed.BookI,Toulouse,Bibliothèquemunicipale,ms.511,inAinsworthandCroenen,https://www.hrionline.ac.uk/onlinefroissart/browsey.jsp?img0=i&pb0=Tou_t_3r&GlobalMode=facsimile&div0=ms.f.transc.Tou&disp0=pb&panes=1[accessed04/07/2017]Croenen,GodfriedandNatashaRomanova,TheOnlineFroissartProject:Manualfortranscriptionandmarkup,Version1.2(July2010)http://pcwww.liverpool.ac.uk/~gcroenen/Guidelines.pdf[accessed26/06/2017]Danesi,Marcel,‘Latinvs.RomanceintheMiddleAges:Dante’sDevulgarieloquentiarevisited’,inRogerWright,(Ed.)LatinandtheRomanceLanguagesintheEarlyMiddleAges(Paperbackedition)(Pennsylvania:PennsylvaniaStateUniversityPress,1996)pp.248-258Deegan,Marilyn,‘CollectionandPreservationofanElectronicEdition’,LouBurnard,KatherineO’BrienO’KeeffeandJohnUnsworth(eds.)ElectronicTextualEditing(NewYork:ModernLanguageAssociation,2006)<www.tei-c.org/sites/default/About/Archive_new?ETE?Preview?mcgovern.xml>[accessed7/2/2016]Deyermond,Alan,‘GermánOrduna(1926-1999)–ABritishView’,BulletinofHispanicStudies,78:2(2001),259-261,259,http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/000749000300078967[accessed04/09/2017]Dillon,Emma,MedievalMusic-MakingandtheRomandeFauvel,(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,2002)DomínguezRodríguez,Ana,‘Laminiaturadel‘scriptorium’alfonsí’,Estudiosalfonsíes:Lexicografía,lírica,ypolíticadeAlfonsoelSabio(Granada:UniversidaddeGranada,1985)pp.127-61,pp.144-147Doubleday,Simon,TheWiseKing:AChristianPrince,MuslimSpainandtheBirthoftheRenaissance(NewYork:BasicBooks,2015)
vi
Duxfield,Polly,‘Alfonso,theEstoriadeEspannaandthelanguageofempire’,1stAnnualColloquiumoftheEstoriadeEspannaDigitalProject(UniversityofBirmingham,10-11April2014)Duxfield,Polly,‘Crowdsourcersgivingusfoodforthought’,BlogpostdatedJanuary26th2015,http://estoria.bham.ac.uk/blog/?p=530,[accessed30/05/2017]Duxfield,Polly,‘Yousay‘nuestro’,Isay‘nostro’.Let’scallthewholethingoff.’BlogpostdatedMarch5th2015,http://estoria.bham.ac.uk/blog/?p=542,[accessed30/05/2017]Duxfield,Polly,‘OriginalManuscriptsorDigitalEditions?ThatistheQuestion.’(23/10/2015),TheEstoriadeEspannaDigitalProjectblog,<http://estoria.bham.ac.uk/blog/?p=613>[accessed28/2/2016]Duxfield,Polly,‘EditingtheEstoriadeEspanna:practicalimplicationsofcollaborativeeditingusingcrowdsourcing’',TwelfthannualconferenceoftheEuropeanSocietyforTextualScholarship(ESTS)–UsersofScholarlyEditions:EditorialAnticipationsofReading,StudyingandConsulting(DeMontfortUniversity,19th-21stNovember2015Duxfield,Polly,‘TranscribingtheEstoriadeEspannausingcrowdsourcing:strategiesandaspirations’,MagnificatCulturaiLiteraturaMedievals,2(2015)pp.129-148,p.131,https://ojs.uv.es/index.php/MCLM/article/view/4977/7071[accessed11/11/2017]Duxfield,Polly,‘ThePracticalitiesofCollaborativelyDigitallyEditingMedievalProse:TheEstoriadeEspannaDigitalProjectasaCaseStudy’,The4thAnnualColloquiumoftheEstoriadeEspannaDigitalProject(Birmingham:UniversityofBirmingham,13-15December2016),publishedinDigitalPhilology7.1(Spring2018),74-92Duxfield,Polly,(ed.)AdigitaleditionoftheCrónicaparticulardeSanFernando,(Birmingham,UniversityofBirmingham,2018)<estoria.bham.ac.uk/CPSF>[accessed23/06/2018]Duxfield,Polly,‘TheCrónicaparticulardeSanFernando:ChapterofthesiegeandtheconquestofCórdoba–atranslationanddiscussion’,Xanthosvol.I(forthcoming).Duxfield,Polly,ChristianKusi-Obodum,MarinePoirier,‘VariabilidadlingüísticaycuestionesdeetiquetaciónXMLenlaedicióndigitaldelaEstoriadeEspanna’,1stAnnualColloquiumoftheEstoriadeEspannaDigitalProject(UniversityofBirmingham,10-11April2014)Duxfield,Polly,ChristianKusi-ObodumandMarinePoirier,‘Cuestionesdeetiquetación’(1stAnnualEDITColloquium)(UniversityofBirmingham,10-11April2014)
vii
Edilán,LapidariodeAlfonsoXelSabiohttp://www.edilan.es/hojas/0004.htm[accessed08/06/2016]Edwards,A.S.G,‘BacktotheReal?’,TimesLiterarySupplement(7thJune2013),https://www.the-tls.co.uk/articles/public/back-to-the-real/[accessed24/10/2017]Eggert,Paul,(SecuringthePast.ConservationinArt,ArchitectureandLiterature(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,2009)Emiliano,António,‘LatinorRomance?GraphemicVariationandScripto-LinguisticChangeinMedievalSpain’inRogerWright,(Ed.)LatinandtheRomanceLanguagesintheEarlyMiddleAges(Paperbackedition)(Pennsylvania:PennsylvaniaStateUniversityPress,1996)pp.233-247EstoriadeEspannaDigitalProject,The,Whentoeditabnumbers,(VLEcourseforvolunteertranscribers)(2014)<https://canvas.bham.ac.uk/courses/15342/pages/when-to-edit-ab-numbers?module_item_id=363342>[accessed19/2/2016]EstoriadeEspannaDigitalProject,The,EstoriaDIgiTal(EDIT)Crowdsourcing(VLEcourseforvolunteertranscribers)(2014)https://canvas.bham.ac.uk/courses/6673[accessed19/2/2016]EstoriadeEspannaDigitalProject,The,‘EDITTeammembers’,(n.d.)http://estoria.bham.ac.uk/blog/?page_id=133[accessed09/07/2017]EstoriadeEspannaDigitalproject,The,‘Methodology’(n.d.)http://estoria.bham.ac.uk/blog/?page_id=923[accessed20/03/2018]EstoriadeEspannaDigitalProject,The,‘Criteriaforthereader’stext’,(n.d.)http://estoria.bham.ac.uk/blog/?page_id=933[accessed10/10/2017]EstoriadeEspannaDigitalProject,The,‘TranscriptionGuidelines’,(n.d.)http://www.textualcommunities.usask.ca/web/estoria-de-espanna/wiki/-/wiki/Main/Transcription+Guidelines[accessed11/01/2017];Facebook,Insights(statistics)intoEstoriadeEspannapage,https://www.facebook.com/estoriadeespanna/[accessed20/02/2018]FernándezGallardo,Luis,‘LaCrónicaparticulardeSanFernando:sobrelosorígenesdelacrónicarealcastellana,I.Aspectosformales’,Cahiersd’étudeshispaniquesmédiévales,32(2009),245-265Fernández-Ordóñez,Inés,LasEstoriasdeAlfonsoelSabio,(Madrid:Istmo,1992),www.cervantesvirtual.com/descargaPdf/las-estorias-de-alfonso-el-sabio-0/[accessed12/06/2018]
viii
Fernández-Ordóñez,Inés,‘Eltallerhistoriográficoalfonsí.LaEstoriadeEspañaylaGeneralEstoriaenelmarcodelasobraspromovidasporAlfonsoelSabio,’inJesúsMontoyaMartínezandAnaDomínguezRodríguez(coords.)ElScriptoriumalfonsí:delosLibrosdeAstrologíaalas‘CantigasdeSantaMaría’,(Madrid:FundaciónUniversidadComplutense,1999),pp.105-126,PDFversionhttps://www.uam.es/personal_pdi/filoyletras/ifo/publicaciones/4_cl.pdf[accessed17/05/2016]Fernández-Ordóñez,Inés,‘Latransmisióntextualdela‘EstoriadeEspaña’ydelasprincipales‘Crónicas’deellasderivadas’inInésFernández-Ordóñez(Ed.)AlfonsoXelSabioylascrónicasdeEspaña(Valladolid:UniversidaddeValladolid,2000)pp.219-264Fernández-Ordóñez,Inés,‘VariaciónenelmodeloalfonsíenelsigloXIII’,CasadeVelázquez(ed.)Lahistoriaalfonsí:elmodeloysusdestinos(siglosXIII-XV)(Madrid:CasadeVelázquez,2000)Fernández-Ordóñez,Inés,‘EstoriadeEspaña’,inCarlosAlvarandJoséManuelLucíaMegías(eds.),DiccionarioFilológicodeLiteraturaMedievalEspañola.Textosytransmisión.(Madrid:Castalia,2002),pp.54-80FradejasRueda,JoséManuel,Introducciónalaedicióndetextosmedievalescastellanos(Madrid:UniversidadNacionaldeEducaciónaDistancia,1991)FradejasRueda,JoséManuel,CríticaTextualparaDummies,lastupdated14thMay2015,ecdotica.hypotheses.org[accessed07/09/2017]FradejasRueda,JoséManuel,(@JMFradeRue),Tweet:‘Nadadelacodificación#TEIdeestefragmentofueintroducidoporserhumano.CómocodificarenTEIsinsaberTEI#7PartidasDigital’,dated20thOctober2017,https://twitter.com/JMFradeRue[accessed13/11/2017]Fraker,Charles,‘AlfonsoX,theEmpireandthePrimeraCrónicaGeneral’inBulletinofHispanicStudies,Vol.55(1978)95-102Funes,Leonardo,Elmodelohistoriográficoalfonsí(London:DepartmentofHispanicStudies,QueenMaryandWestfieldCollege,1997)Funes,Leonardo,‘EllugardelaCrónicaparticulardeSanFernandoenelsistemadelasformascronísticascastellanasdeprincipiosdelsigloXIV’,AIH,ActasdelXIICongresodelaAsociaciónInternacionaldeHispanistas(Birmingham,21-26August1995),Vol.1(1998)176-182https://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/articulo?codigo=1355830,[accessed15/09/2016]Funes,Leonardo,‘Dosversionesantagónicasdelahistoriaydelaley:unavisióndelahistoriografíacastellanadeAlfonsoXalCancillerAyala’,AengusWard(ed.)Teoríay
ix
prácticadelahistoriografíahispánicamedieval(Birmingham:UniversityofBirminghamPress,2000),pp.8-31Funes,Leonardo,‘CrónicaparticulardeSanFernando’inGraemeDunphy(ed.),EncyclopediaoftheMedievalChronicle,Vol.I.(Leiden,Boston:Brill,2010)pp.386-387Funes,Leonardo,‘Historiografíanobiliariadelperíodopost-alfonsí:unfenómenohistórico-literarioendiscusión’inLeonardoFunes(coord.),Hispanismosdelmundo–diálogosydebatesen(ydesde)elSur,Anexodigital,secciónI,(BuenosAires:MinoyDávila,2016)77-86,https://tinyurl.com/y9rwrns5,[accessed22/03/2018]Funes,Leonardo,La‘Estoriacabadelante’enlaCrónicaparticulardeSanFernando:UnavisiónnobiliariadelreinadodeFernandoIII’,ConstanceCarta,SarahFinciandDoraMancheva(Eds.)Antesdeagotanlamanoylaplumaquesuhistoria–Magisdeficitmanusetcalamusquameiushystoria,HomenajeaCarlosAlvar,VolumenI:EdadMedia(SanMillándelaCogolla:Cilengua,2016)GagoJover,Francisco,(ed.).“Lapidario”,“EstoriadeEspañaI”,“EstoriadeEspañaII”and“GeneralestoriaI”,ProseWorksofAlfonsoXelSabio.DigitalLibraryofOldSpanishTexts.HispanicSeminaryofMedievalStudies,2011,http://www.hispanicseminary.org/t&c/ac/index-en.htm[accessed26/02/2014]GautierDalché,Jean,‘Lapolitiquemonetaireetfiscaled’AlphonseXrevisitéeparGuillermoCastánLanaspa’,Alcanate(2004-2005)315-352GildeBalenchana,Mariano,‘Apuntesnobiliarios–LosVargas’,NuevaAcademiaHeráldica(1913),p.11andonwards,quotedathttp://www.losvargas.org/historia/1913_apuntes_nobiliarios.html,[accessed21/09/2016]Giles,Jim,‘Internetencyclopaediasgoheadtohead’,Nature,15/12/2005,lastupdated28/03/2006http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v438/n7070/full/438900a.html?foxtrotcallback=true[accessed10/10/2017]GómezRedondo,Fernando,Historiadelaprosamedievalcastellana,Vol.II.Eldesarrollodelosgéneros.Laficcióncaballerescayelordenreligioso.(Madrid:Cátedra,1999)GómezRedondo,Fernando,‘CrónicadeAlfonsoXI’,inCarlosAlvarandJoséManuelLucíaMegías(eds.),DiccionarioFilológicodeLiteraturaMedievalEspañola.Textosytransmisión.(Madrid:Castalia,2002)pp.278-284GonzálezJiménez,Manuel,‘AlfonsoXylasminoríasconfesionalesdemudéjaresyjudíos’,MiguelRodríguezLlopis(Coord.)AlfonsoX:AportacionesdeunreycastellanoalaconstruccióndeEuropa(Murcia:RegióndeMurcia,ConsejeríadeCulturayEducación,1997)pp.71-90
x
GonzálezJiménez,Manuel,FernandoIIIelSanto:ElreyquemarcóeldestinodeEspaña,(Seville:FundaciónJoséManuelLara,2006)GoogleAnalytics–Audienceoverview–EstoriadeEspannaEdition,http://bit.ly/2ycpjtc[accessed13/08/2018]Greetham,David,‘TextualScholarship’,JosephGibaldi(ed.)IntroductiontoScholarshipinModernLanguagesandLiteratures,SecondEdition(NewYork:TheModernLanguageAssociationofAmerica,1992)pp.103-137Greetham,David,TextualScholarship–AnIntroduction(NewYorkandLondon:GarlandPublishingInc,1994)(originalpublication1992)Greg,W.W,‘TheRationaleofCopy-Text’,StudiesinBibliography,Vol.3,(1950-1951)pp.19-36Harris,Martin,‘TheRomanceLanguages’,MartinHarrisandNigelVincent,(eds.)TheRomanceLanguages(London:CroomHelm,1988)pp.1-25Harris-Northall,Ray,ManualofManuscriptTranscriptionfortheDictionaryoftheOldSpanishLanguage,5thedition(Revisedandexpanded)(MadisonWisconsin:HSMS,1997)http://www.hispanicseminary.org/manual/HSMS-manual.pdf[accessed15/09/2017]Hartman,Steven,‘AlfonsoelSabioandtheVarietiesofVerbGrammar’,Hispania57:1,(March1974)48-55Haugen,OddEinar,‘ThespiritofLachmann,thespiritofBédier:OldNorsetextualeditingintheelectronicage’,AnnualmeetingofTheVikingSociety(London:UniversityCollegeLondon,8November2002)<http://www.ub.uib.no/elpub/2003/a/522001/haugen.pdf>[accessed25/01/2016]Haugen,OddEinar,mostrecentlymodifiedbyMarinaBuzzoni,‘Neo-LachmannianPhilology’,Confluence,lastedited01/11/2015,https://wiki.hiit.fi/display/stemmatology/Neo-Lachmannian+Philology[accessed17/08/2017]Haugen,OddEinar,mostrecentlymodifiedbyPhilippRoelli,‘Edition,best-manuscript’,Confluence,lastedited07/11/2015,https://wiki.hiit.fi/display/stemmatology/Edition%2C+best-manuscript[accessed03/10/2017]Herman,Jozsef,Lelatinvulgaire(Paris:PressesUniversitairesdeFrance,1967)
xi
Herman,József,‘SpokenandWrittenLatinintheLastCenturiesoftheRomanEmpire.AContributiontotheLinguisticHistoryoftheWesternProvinces’,inRogerWright,(Ed.)LatinandtheRomanceLanguagesintheEarlyMiddleAges(Paperbackedition)(Pennsylvania:PennsylvaniaStateUniversityPress,1996)pp.29-43HijanoVillegas,Manuel,‘ContinuacionesdelToledano:elcasodelaHistoriahasta1288dialogada’,inFranciscoBautista(ed.),ElRelatohistoriográfico:TextosytradicionesenlaEspañamedieval,(London:QueenMaryandWestfieldCollege,2006),pp.123-148HijanoVillegas,Manuel,‘Fuentesromancesdelascrónicasgenerales:EltestimoniodelaHistoriamenosatajante’,HispanicResearchJournal,12:2(2011)118-134HijanoVillegas,Manuel,‘Monumentoinacabado:LaEstoriadeEspaña’,Cahiersd’étudeshispaniquesmédiévales37(2014),13-44HijanoVillegas,Manuel,‘CrónicaparticulardeSanFernando:composiciónytransmisión’,Draftcopy(2018),https://www.academia.edu/35861669/Cr%C3%B3nica_particular_de_San_Fernando_draft_,[accessed11/02/2018]HijanoVillegas,Manuel,Procedimientosparalaconstruccióndelpasadoenla‘crónicasgenerales’,ColoquioInternacional“Hispano-medievalismoyCríticaTextual:40añosdelSECRIT(1978-2018)BuenosAires,9-11May2018Hillery,Bob,inJieJennyZou,‘CivilWarProjectShowsProsandConsofCrowdsourcing’,WiredCampus,[commentonblogdated14/06/2011,updated21/06/2011]Houghton,H.A.G,‘TheElectronicScriptorium:MarkupforNewTestamentManuscripts’,ClaireClivaz,AndrewGregoryandDavidHamidović(eds.),DigitalHumanitiesinBiblical,JewishandEarlyChristianStudies(ScholarlyCommunication2),(Leiden:Brill,2013)31–60.<http://pure-oai.bham.ac.uk/ws/files/14577500/2013_Houghton_DH_preprint.pdf>[accessed17/02/2016]Houghton,H.A.G,IGNTPguidelinesforXMLtranscriptionsofNewTestamentmanuscripts.Version1.4.Manual.InternationalGreekNewTestamentProject(2013)(unpublished)<http://epapers.bham.ac.uk/1727/5/IGNTP_XML_guidelines_1-4.pdf>[accessed18/02/2016]Houghton,H.A.G,andC.J.Smith,‘DigitalEditingandtheGreekNewTestament’,ClaireClivaz,PaulDilleyandDavidHamidović(eds.)TheAncientWorldsinADigitalCulture.(DigitalBiblicalStudies1)(Leiden:Brill,2016)<http://pure-oai.bham.ac.uk/ws/files/25092181/2016_Houghton_and_Smith_revised.pdf>[accessed17/02/2016]
xii
Houghton,H.A.G,MartinSievers,andCatherineSmith,‘TheWorkspaceforCollaborativeEditing’,DigitalHumanitiesConference,(Lausanne,9thJuly2014)availableathttp://dharchive.org/paper/DH2014/Paper-224.xml[accessed13/11/2015]Howe,Jeff,‘TheRiseofCrowdsourcing’,Wiredissue14.06(2006)http://ow.ly/JFY52[accessed26/09/2014]HSMS,HSMSHome,http://www.hispanicseminary.org/index-en.htm[accessed15/09/2017]HSMS,DigitalLibraryofOldSpanishTexts,http://www.hispanicseminary.org/textconc-en.htm[accessed15/09/2017]Hult,David,‘ReadingitRight:TheIdeologyofTextEditing’inMarinaBrownlee,KevinBrownleeandStephenNichols(eds.)TheNewMedievalism(BaltimoreandLondon:JohnsHopkinsUniversityPress,1991)pp.111-130IBIICRITCONICET,SECRITIBIICRIT,(n.d.)http://www.iibicrit-conicet.gov.ar/[accessed09/09/2017]IBIICRITCONICET,CategoryArchives:Edicionescríticas,(n.d.)http://www.iibicrit-conicet.gov.ar/wordpress/category/ediciones-criticas/[accessed09/09/2017]InternationalTelecommunicationUnion(ITU),WorldBank,andUnitedNationsPopulationDivision,Internetusersintheworld,http://www.internetlivestats.com/internet-users/[accessed17/06/2018]Janson,Tore,‘LanguageChangeandMetalinguisticChange:LatintoRomanceandOtherCases’,RogerWright,(Ed.)LatinandtheRomanceLanguagesintheEarlyMiddleAges(Paperbackedition)(Pennsylvania:PennsylvaniaStateUniversityPress,1996)pp.19-28Kasten,Lloyd,‘Review:ManualdecríticatextualbyAlbertoBlecua’,Hispania,no.68,vol.2(May1985),298-299,http://www.jstor.org/stable/342171[accessed17/08/2017]Keller,JohnEsten,AlfonsoX,ElSabio(NewYork:Twayne,1967)Kevern,Rachel,Personalinterviewwithmeon4/11/2014Kevern,Rachel,TranscribingGreekMinisculeManuscripts:AtutorialcreatedforvolunteertranscribersfortheInternationalFreeNewTestamentProject(2010)Unpublished,p.7Availableat:Chapters1and2:http://epapers.bham.ac.uk/753/1/Tutorial1%262.pdf[accessed31/10/2015]
xiii
Chapters3and4:http://epapers.bham.ac.uk/1480/1/TranscribingTutorial3%264.pdf[accessed31/10/2015]Chapters5and6:http://epapers.bham.ac.uk/1481/1/TranscribingTutorial5%266.pdf[accessed31/10/2015]Kiernan,Kevin,‘DigitalPreservation,RestorationandDisseminationofMedievalManuscripts’,ScholarlyPublishingontheElectronicNetworks,1993:Gateways,GatekeepersandRolesintheInformationOmniverse,(1993),<http://www.uky.edu/~kiernan/eBeo_archives/#A>[accessed13/01/2016]Kinkade,Richard,‘AlfonsoX,Cantiga235,andtheEventsof1269-1275’,Speculum67:2(1992)284-323Kline,Mary-Jo,AGuidetoDocumentaryEditing,2ndEdition,(BaltimoreandLondon:TheJohnsHopkinsUniversityPress,1998)Knapton,Sarah,‘SeveredheadofeccentricJeremyBenthamtogoondisplayasscientiststestDNAtoseeifhewasautistic’,TheTelegraph(02October2017)http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2017/10/02/severed-head-eccentric-jeremy-bentham-go-display-scientists/[accessed11/11/2017]Kusi-Obodum,Christian,AlfonsoXandIslam:NarrativesofConflictandCo-operationintheEstoriadeEspaña,Unpublisheddoctoralthesis,(UniversityofBirmingham,2017)http://etheses.bham.ac.uk/8095/[accessed01/07/2018]Lapesa,Rafael,Historiadelalenguaespañola,9thedition(Madrid:EditorialGredos,1981)Leite,Mariana,‘Transmittingandtranslatingthehistoryoftheworld:Alfonso’sGeneralEstoriainPortugal’,TheEstoriadeEspannaProjectResearchSeminar,(UniversityofBirmingham,14April2016)Leonard,Nick,inPollyDuxfield,‘Crowdsourcingupdate–June2015’,TheEstoriadeEspannaProjectBlog(commentonblogdated13thJune2015)http://estoria.bham.ac.uk/blog/?p=598[accessed10/12/2015]Linehan,Peter,Spain1157-1300:APartibleInheritance(Oxford:Blackwell,2008)Lloyd,Paul,FromLatintoSpanish.Vol.1.HistoricalphonologyandmorphologyoftheSpanishlanguage(Philadelphia:AmericanPhilosophicalSociety,1987)Lomax,Derek,‘RodrigoJiménezdeRadacomohistoriador’,AIHActasV.(1974),http://cvc.cervantes.es/literatura/aih/pdf/05/aih_05_2_017.pdf[accessed20/12/2013]
xiv
LópezEstrada,Francisco,Introducciónalaliteraturamedievalespañola,(Madrid:Gredos,1979)LucíaMegías,JoséManuel,‘ManualesdeCríticaTextual:Laslíneasmaestrasdelaecdóticaespañola’,Revistadepoéticamedieval,2,(1998)pp.115-153,p.118,https://tinyurl.com/y75nm3ah[accessed07/09/2017]LucíaMegías,JoséManuel,‘EditarenInternet’Incipit18(1998),1-40LucíaMegías,JoséManuel,‘LacríticatextualanteelsigloXXI:laprimacíadeltexto,’inLillianvonderWaldeMoheno(ed.),‘Propuestasteórico-metodológicasparaelestudiodelaliteraturahispánicamedieval’,Medievalia27(2003)specialissue,417–92MacDonald,Robert,‘AlfonsotheLearnedandSuccession:AFather’sDilemma’,Speculum40:4(1965)647-653Mackay,Angus,SpaintheMiddleAges:FromFrontiertoEmpire,1000-1500(Basingstoke:Macmillan,1977)Marco,MarcellaDe,‘TecnicismosycultismosenelLapidariodeAlfonsoXelSabio’Hesperia7:2004,37-56Márquez-Villanueva,Francisco,‘TheAlfonsineculturalconcept’,FranciscoMárquez-VillanuevaandCarlosAlbertoVega(Eds.)AlfonsoXofCastiletheLearned(1221-1284):AnInternationalSymposium,HarvardUniversity,17November1984(CambridgeMA:TheDepartmentofRomanceLanguagesandLiteraturesofHarvardUniversity,1990)pp.76-92Martelli,Mario,‘Considerazioniintornoallacontaminazionenellatradizionedeitestivolgari’,Lacriticadeltesto:problemidimetodoedesperienzedelavoro:attidelConvegnodiLecce,22-26ottobre1984(Rome:Salerno,1985)pp.127-149MartínAizpuru,Leyre,‘TEIalserviciodelapuntuaciónmanuscritadeladocumentacióndelacancilleríarealcastellanadelsigloXIII.Unapropuestademarcado,’SecondAnnualColloquiumoftheEstoriadeEspannaDigitalproject(UniversityofOxford,MagdalenCollege,14-15November2014)Martin,Georges,LesjugesdeCastille–Mentatlitésetdiscourshistoriquedansl’Espagnemédiévale(Paris:Séminaired’étudesmédiévaleshispaniques,1992)Martin,Georges,Histoiresdel’Espagnemédiévales(Historiographie,geste,romancero)(Paris:Séminaired’étudesmédiévaleshispaniquesdel’universitédeParisXIII,1997)Martin,Georges,‘Elmodelohistoriográficoalfonsíysusantecedentes’,CasadeVelázquez(ed.)Lahistoriaalfonsí:elmodeloysusdestinos(siglosXIII-XV)(Madrid:CasadeVelázquez,2000)
xv
Martínez-Dávila,RogerLouis,‘ThePotentialofMassiveOpenOnlineCourses’,ASPHSNewsletter,Vol.6,Fall2015,8-13,13https://asphs.net/images/ASPHS_Newsletter_vol_6_2015_.pdf[accessed11/11/2017]Maser,Matthias,‘RodrigoJiménezdeRada.Christian-MuslimRelations:ABibliographicalHistory’,DavidThomas,(Ed.)BrillOnlineReference2013.http://brillonline.nl/entries/Christian-muslim-relations/Rodrigo-jimenez-de-rada-COM_24223,[accessed20/12/2013]MasiadeRos,Ángeles,‘LaspretensionesdelosInfantesdelaCerdaalacoronadeCastillaentiemposdeSanchoIVyFernandoIV.Elapoyoaragonés’,Medievalia10(1992)255-279McGann,Jerome,ACritiqueofModernTextualCriticism(CharlottesvilleandLondon:UniversityPressofVirginia,1983,1992)McGann,Jerome,‘“Ulysses”asaPostmodernText:TheGablerEdition’,Criticism21:3,(Summer1985),283-305McGann,Jerome,‘WhatisCriticalEditing?’Text,5(1991),15-29McGann,Jerome,‘TheRationaleofHyperText’,TextVol.9,(1996),11-32McGann,Jerome,‘Publications’,JeromeMcGann:Vita(2004)<http://www2.iath.virginia.edu/jjm2f/vita.html>[accessed5/2/2016]McGann,Jerome,‘FromTexttoWork:DigitalToolsandtheEmergenceoftheSocialText’,Variants,4(2005)225-240McKenzie,D.F,BibliographyandtheSociologyofTexts,ElectronicEdition(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,1999)<http://site.ebrary.com/lib/bham/detail.action?docID=10015014>[accessed6/2/2016]MenéndezPidal,Gonzalo,‘Cómotrabajaronlasescuelasalfonsíes’,NuevaRevistadeFilologíaHispánica5:4(1951)363-380MenéndezPidal,Ramón,PrimeraCrónicaGeneralquemandócomponerAlfonsoelSabioysecontinuababajoSanchoIVen1289,2volumes(Madrid:EditorialGredos,1906,1955,1977)MenéndezPidal,Ramón,RomanceroHispánico(Madrid:Espasa-Calpe,1953)
xvi
Menocal,MaríaRosa,TheOrnamentoftheWorld:howMuslims,JewsandChristianscreatedacultureoftoleranceinmedievalSpain(London:Little,BrownandCompany,2002)Minnis,A.J,Medievaltheoryofauthorship,secondedition(Aldershot:WildwoodHouse,1988),Minnis,A.J,‘Thesignificanceofthemedievaltheoryofauthorship’,in:SeánBurke(ed.)Authorship:fromPlatotothepostmodern–areader(Edinburgh:EdinburghUniversityPress,1995)pp.23-30Morrás,María,‘ReviewofJoséManuelFradejasRueda,Introducciónalaedicióncríticadetextosmedievalescastellanos’,RomancePhilology,48.3,(1Feb1995)317-322,319,https://search-proquest-com.ezproxye.bham.ac.uk/docview/1296993962?accountid=8630[accessed15/09/2017]Moure,JoséLuis,‘GermánOrduna,(Unavidadedicadaalacríticatextual)’,inLeonardoFunesandJoséManuelLucíaMegías(editors)GermanOrduna–FundamentosdeCríticaTextual(Madrid:Arco/Libros,2005)pp.9-14Moyle,Martin,JustinTonraandValerieWallace,‘ManuscriptTranscriptionbyCrowdsourcing:TranscribeBentham’,LiberQuarterly20(3/4)(March2011)347-356,352-353,https://www.liberquarterly.eu/articles/10.18352/lq.7999/[accessed11/11/2017]Mueller,Martin,‘AbouttheFutureoftheTEI’,LettertomemberoftheTEI-CBoardandCouncil,dated04/08/2011,<http://ariadne.northwestern.edu/mmueller/teiletter.pdf>[accessed17/02/2016]Novikoff,Alex,‘FromDialoguetoDisputationintheageofArchbishopJiménezdeRada’,JournalofMedievalIberianStudies,4:1(2012)95-100,http://www.tandfonline.com.ezproxye.bham.ac.uk/doi/full/10.1080/17546559.2012.677194#tabModule,[accessed20/12/2013]O’Callaghan,Joseph,‘TheCortesandRoyalTaxationDuringtheReignofAlfonsoXofCastile’,Traditio27(1971)379-398O’Callaghan,Joseph,AHistoryofMedievalSpain(IthacaandLondon:CornellUniversityPress,1975)O’Callaghan,Joseph,TheLearnedKing:TheReignofAlfonsoXofCastile(Philadelphia:UniversityofPennsylvaniaPress,1993)O’Callaghan,Joseph,TheCortesofCastile-Leon1188-1350(Philadelphia:UniversityofPennsylvaniaPress,1989)
xvii
O’Callaghan, Joseph, Reconquest and Crusade in Medieval Spain (Philadelphia:UniversityofPennsylvaniaPress,2003)Orduna,Germán,‘Laedicióncrítica’,IncipitX(1990)17-43Orduna,Germán,‘Ecdóticahispánicayelvalorestematicodelahistoriadeltexto’,RomancePhilology,45:1(Aug11991),89-101,90,https://search-proquest-com.ezproxyd.bham.ac.uk/docview/1296991154?accountid=8630[accessed04/09/2017]Orduna,Germán,‘Laedicióndetextoshistóricosenespañol’(Estadoactualdeltema,estudioseinvestigacionesarealizer),ActasdelCongresodelaLenguaEspañola,(ÁlcaladeHenares,InstitutoCervantes,1994)Orduna,Germán,Ecdótica–Problemáticadelaedicióndetextos(Kassel:EditionReichenberger,2000)Parker,D.C,‘ThroughaScreenDarkly:DigitalTextsandtheNewTestament’,JournalfortheStudyoftheNewTestament,25.4(2003)Parker,D.C.,"TheNovumTestamentumGraecumEditioCriticaMaiorandtheUnitedBibleSocieties'GreekNewTestament:ASpecialistCriticalEditionandaHandEdition",UsersofScholarlyEditions:EditorialAnticipationsofReading,StudyingandConsulting,12thAnnualConferenceoftheEuropeanSocietyforTextualScholarship,(DeMontfortUniversity,19-21November2015)Parker,D.C,‘Electronicreligioustexts:theGospelofJohn’,LouBurnard,KatherineO’BrienO’KeeffeandJohnUnsworth(eds.)ElectronicTextualEditing(NewYork:ModernLanguageAssociation,2006)<http://www.tei-c.org/About/Archive_new/ETE/Preview/parker.xml>[accessed19/2/2016]Partridge,Stephen,‘TheMakereofthisBoke’:Chaucer’sRetractionandtheAuthorasScribeandCompiler’,StephenPartridgeandEricKwakkel(Eds.)Author,Reader,Book:MedievalAuthorshipinTheoryandPractice,(Toronto:UniversityofTorontoPress,2012)pp.106-153Penny,Ralph,AHistoryoftheSpanishLanguage(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,1991)Pensado,Carmen,‘HowwasLeoneseVulgarLatinread?’,RogerWright,(Ed.)LatinandtheRomanceLanguagesintheEarlyMiddleAges(Paperbackedition)(Pennsylvania:PennsylvaniaStateUniversityPress,1996)pp.190-204PérezPriego,MiguelÁngel,Introduccióngeneralalaedicióndeltextoliteratio,(Madrid:UniversidadNacionaldeEducaciónaDistancia,2001)
xviii
Pierazzo,Elena,DigitalScholarlyEditing:Theories,ModelsandMethods(Oxford:Routledge,2015)pp.49-50availableathttps://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01182162/document[accessed08/11/2017]Pinterest,‘WeirdMedievalMarginalia’,https://www.pinterest.com/pin/414683078164618110/[accessed03/05/2017]PonsTovar,Monserrat,‘TraducciónenlacortedeAlfonsoX’,AnMalElectrónica29(2010),241-251Prescott,Andrew,'”UntouchedbytheHand”:ReconsideringtheEditionandFacsimile’,UsersofScholarlyEditions:EditorialAnticipationsofReading,StudyingandConsulting,12thAnnualConferenceoftheEuropeanSocietyforTextualScholarship,(DeMontfortUniversity,19-21November2015)Price,Kenneth,‘ElectronicScholarlyEditions’,inSusanSchreibmanandRaySiemens(ed.),ACompaniontoDigitalLiteraryStudies(Oxford:Blackwell,2009)<www.whitmanarchive.org/about/articles/anc.00267.html>[accessed2/4/2016]Raabe,Wesley,‘CollationinScholarlyEditing:AnIntroduction’(26/7/2008)FillHisHeadFirstwithaThousandQuestions,<https://wraabe.wordpress.com/2008/07/26/collation-in-scholarly-editing-an-introduction-draft/>[accessed18/2/2016]Rand,EdwardKennard,‘DomQuentin’sMemoiroftheVulgate’,TheHarvardTheologicalReview,No.17,Vol.2(July1924)197-264,http://www.jstor.org/stable/1507899,[accessed19/08/2017]READ,‘About’,RecognitionandEnrichmentofArchivalDocuments,https://read.transkribus.eu/about/[accessed14/11/2017]RedCHARTA,CriteriosdeCHARTA,(n.d)http://www.corpuscharta.es/[accessed19/08/2017]RedCHARTA,Criteriosdeedicióndedocumentoshispánicos(orígenes-sigloXIX)delaredinternacionalCHARTA(versiondatedApril2013)http://files.redcharta1.webnode.es/200000023-de670df5d6/Criterios%20CHARTA%2011abr2013.pdf[accessed15/04/2018]RedCHARTA,CorpusHispánicoyAmericanoenlaRed:TextosAntiguos,(2015)http://www.corpuscharta.es/[accessed19/08/2017]Robinson,Peter,‘NewDirectionsinCriticalEditing’,KathrynSutherland(ed),ElectronicText–InvestigationsinMethodandTheory,(Oxford:ClarendonPress,1997)pp.145-171
xix
Robinson,Peter,ThebackgroundtotheTextualCommunitiesproject(2013)<http://www.textualcommunities.usask.ca/web/textual-community/wiki/-/wiki/Main/The+background+to+the+Textual+Communities+Project>lastupdated22/11/2013[accessed18/2/2016]Robinson,Peter,‘WhereWeAreWithElectronicScholarlyEditions,andWhereWeWantToBe’,JahrbuchfürComputerphilologie5,(2003),123-143,<http://computerphilologie.uni-muenchen.de/jg03/robinson.html>[accessed08/01/2016]Robinson,Peter,‘TheCanterburyTalesandOtherMedievalTexts’,LouBurnard,KatherineO’BrienO’KeeffeandJohnUnsworth(eds.)ElectronicTextualEditing(NewYork:ModernLanguageAssociation,2006)<http://www.tei-c.org/About/Archive_new/ETE/Preview/robinson.xml>[accessed19/2/2016]Robinson,Peter,‘Towardsatheoryofdigitaleditions’,Variants,10(2013),105-131,https://www.academia.edu/3233227/Towards_a_Theory_of_Digital_Editions[accessed12/12/2018]Robinson,Peter,‘TheConceptoftheWorkintheDigitalAge’,Ecdotica,10(2013),13-41Robinson,Peter,‘SomePrinciplesfortheMakingofCollaborativeScholarlyEditionsinDigitalForm’(Draftcopy),SeminarProgram:GöttingenDialoginDigitalHumanities2015,(GöttingenCentreforDigitalHumanities,26May2015)<https://www.academia.edu/12297061/Some_principles_for_the_making_of_collaborative_scholarly_editions_in_digital_form>[accessed17/02/2016]Robinson,Peter,‘TheDigitalRevolutioninScholarlyEditing’,B.Crostini,G.IversenandB.M.Jensen,(eds.),ArsEdendiLectureSeries,vol.IV(Stockholm:StockholmUniversityPress,2016)pp.181-207Robinson,Peter,‘Project-baseddigitalhumanitiesandsocial,digital,andscholarlyeditions’,DigitalScholarshipintheHumanities,DigitalScholarshipintheHumanities,Volume31,Issue4,(1December2016)875–889,https://doi.org/10.1093/llc/fqw020[accessed12/04/2018]Robinson,Peter,‘FirstTextualCommunitiesWorkshop’,TextualCommunities,http://www.textualcommunities.usask.ca/web/textual-community/blog[accessed08/06/2018].Robinson,Peter,‘HowTCWorks:TextualCommunitiesandOverlappingHierarchies’,TextualCommunities,(n.d.)http://www.textualcommunities.usask.ca/web/textual-community/wiki/-/wiki/Main/How+TC+Works[accessed20/03/2018]
xx
Robinson,Peter,‘TextualCommunities’,TextualCommunities,(n.d.),http://www.textualcommunities.usask.ca/web/textual-community/home,[accessed11/01/2017]Rossman,Charles,“TheCriticalReceptionofthe“Gabler“Ulysses”:OrGabler’s“Ulysses”Kidd-napped”,StudiesintheNovel,21.2(summer1989)154-181,<http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/29532634.pdf>[accessed25/01/2016]RCCP,‘DecipheringSecrets:UnlockingthemanuscriptsofmedievalSpain’CourseraMOOC,https://www.coursera.org/course/medievalspain[accessed28/11/2015]Sahle,Patrick,‘WhatisaScholarlyDigitalEdition?’MatthewJamesDriscollandElenaPierazzo(Eds.)DigitalScholarlyEditing–TheoriesandPractice,(Cambridge,UK:OpenBookPublishers,2016)e-bookhttp://dx.doi.org/10.11647/OBP.0095[accessed21/02/2018]pp.19-39SalvadorMartínez,H,LaconvivenciaenlaEspañadelsigloXIII,(Madrid:Poliferno,2006)SalvadorMartínez,H,AlfonsoX,theLearned:ABiography,translatedbyOdileCisneros(LeidenandBoston:Brill,2010)Sánchez-PrietoBorja,Pedro,Cómoeditarlostextosmedievales:Criteriosparasupresentacióngráfica(Madrid:ArcoLibros1998)Sánchez-PrietoBorja,Pedro,Laedicióndetextosespañolesmedievalesyclásicos:Criteriosdepresentacióngráfica(SanMillandelaCogolla:Cilengua,2011)Schipper,William,‘Digitizing(Nearly)UnreadableFragmentsofCyprian’sEpistolary’,SiânEchardandStephenPartridge(eds.)TheBookUnbound:EditingandReadingMedievalManuscripts(Toronto:UniversityofTorontoPress,2004)pp.159-168ScholarlyDigitalEditions,ScholarlyDigitalEditions:AboutUs,(n.d.)<http://www.sd-editions.com/about/index.html>[accessed19/2/2016]Seaward,Louise,‘TranscribingwithTechnology:TheBenthamandRecognitionandEnrichmentofArchivalDocumentsProjects’,RHSNewsletter,May2016,20-23Seaward,Louise,TranscriptionUpdate–3rdFebruaryto2ndMarch[2018],(blogpostdated9thMarch2018)http://blogs.ucl.ac.uk/transcribe-bentham/2018/03/09/transcription-update-3-february-to-2-march-2018/[accessed18/03/2018]Seaward,Louise,andElaineCharwat,‘IfyouteachacomputertoRead…’December/January2016/17,CILIPUpdate,https://read.transkribus.eu/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/Update_1201_pp38-40.pdf,38-40,39[accessed15/03/2018]
xxi
Seaward,Louise,PersonalcommunicationviaFacebookmessengeron14/11/2017Segre,Cesare,‘Lestranscriptionsentantquediasystèmes’,ColloquesInternationauxduCNRS,No.579–Lapractiquedesordinateursdanslacritiquedestextes,Paris,29-31March1978(Paris,ÉditionsduCentreNationaldelaRechercheScientifique,1979),pp.45-47Shillingsburg,Peter,FromGutenbergtoGoogle–ElectronicRepresentationsofLiteraryTexts(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,2006)Shirky,Clay,‘Howcognitivesurpluswillchangetheworld’TEDtalk,(videofile)(June2010)availableat:https://www.ted.com/talks/clay_shirky_how_cognitive_surplus_will_change_the_world/transcript?language=en[accessed27/11/2015]Solalinde,Antonio,‘IntervencióndeAlfonsoelSabioenlaredaccióndesusobras’,inRevistadeFilologíaEspañola,Vol.2(1915)283-288Spence,Paul,‘Ediciónacadémicaenlaeradigital:Modelos,difusiónyprocesodeinvestigación’,AnuarioLopedeVega.Texto,literatura,cultura,XX(2014),47-83,Spence,Paul,‘Sieteretosdeedicióndigitalparalasfuentesdocumentales’,ScriptumDigital,Vol.3(2014)153-181Tanselle,G.Thomas,‘TheEditingofHistoricalDocuments’,StudiesinBibliography,31(1978)1-56Tanselle,G.Thomas,‘EditingWithoutaCopy-Text’,StudiesinBibliography,47(1994)1-22Tanselle,G.Thomas,‘Foreword’,inBurnard,O’Brian,O’KeefeandUnsworth(eds.)ElectronicTextualEditing,(2006)http://www.tei-c.org/About/Archive_new/ETE/Preview/tanselle.xml[accessed21/11/2017]TextEncodingInitiative,‘AboutTheseGuidelines’,(n.d.)<http://www.tei-c.org/release/doc/tei-p5-doc/en/html/AB.html>[accessed17/02/2016]TextEncodingInitiative,‘TEI:TextEncodingInitiative’,(2013)<http://www.tei-c.org/index.xml>[accessed17/02/2016]TextEncodingInitiative,TEIP5Guidelines(2015)<http://www.tei-c.org/Guidelines/P5/>[accessed18/2/2016]TextualCommunities,DefaultTranscriptionGuidelines,(n.d.)<http://www.textualcommunities.usask.ca/web/textual-community/wiki/-/wiki/Main/Default+transcription+guidelines>[accessed18/02/2016]
xxii
Thompson,Bill,‘WhatisitwithWikipedia?’BBCNews,16/12/2005,http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4534712.stm[accessed10/10/2017]Trovato,Paolo,EverythingYouAlwaysWantedtoKnowaboutLachmann’sMethod.ANon-StandardHandbookofGenealogicalTextualCriticismintheAgeofPost-Structuralism,Cladistics,andCopy-Text(Padova:libreriauniversitaria.it,2014)ValdeónBaruque,Julio,LaReconquista:ElconceptodeEspaña:unidadydiversidad(Madrid:Espasa,2006)Vanderford,Kenneth,AlfonsoelSabio:Setenario(BuenosAires:InstitutodeFilología,1945)Varvaro,Alberto,‘LatinandRomance:FragmentationofRestructuring?’,inRogerWright,(Ed.)LatinandtheRomanceLanguagesintheEarlyMiddleAges(Paperbackedition)(Pennsylvania:PennsylvaniaStateUniversityPress,1996)pp.44-51Walsh,Thomas,‘SpellingLapsesinEarlyMedievalLatinDocumentsandtheReconstructionofPrimitiveRomancePhonology’,inRogerWright,(Ed.)LatinandtheRomanceLanguagesintheEarlyMiddleAges(Paperbackedition)(Pennsylvania:PennsylvaniaStateUniversityPress,1996)pp.205-218AengusWard,‘LaEstoriadelosGodos:¿Laprimeracrónicacastellana?’,Revistadepoéticamedieval,8(2002),181-198,182;AlistofthesourcesofDerebusHispaniaearepresentedbyGeorgesMartininLesjugesdeCastille,pp.258-259Ward,Aengus,‘SumarioanalísticodelaHistoriaGothica:EditionandStudy’,PapersoftheMedievalHispanicResearchSeminar57(London:DepartmentofHispanicStudies,UniversityofLondon,2007)Ward,Aengus,‘Past,presentandfutureintheLatinandRomancehistoriographyofthemedievalChristiankingdomsofSpain’,JournalofMedievalIberianStudies,Vol.1Issue2(2009),147-162Ward,Aengus,HistoryandChroniclesinLateMedievalIberia:RepresentationsofWambainLateMedievalNarrativeHistories(LeidenandBoston:Brill,2011)Ward,Aengus,‘EditingtheEstoriadeEspanna’,Ecdotica,11,(2014)185-204Ward,Aengus,‘Muger/Mugier?’EstoriadeEspannaDigitalProjectblog,blogdated17/01/2014,http://estoria.bham.ac.uk/blog/?p=201[accessed16/10/2016]Ward,Aengus,‘ManuscriptsasArtefacts’,(3/11/2015),TheEstoriadeEspannaDigitalProjectblog,<http://estoria.bham.ac.uk/blog/?p=636>[accessed28/2/2016]
xxiii
Ward,Aengus,ed.,EstoriadeEspannaDigitalv.1.0(Birmingham:UniversityofBirmingham,2016)<estoria.bham.ac.uk>[accessed22/03/2018]Ward,Aengus,‘EditarlaEstoriadeEspanna:Retosyproblemasdelaedicióndigital’,Incipit37(2017),13-43Ward,Aengus,‘TheEstoriadeEspannaDigital:collatingmedievalprose–challenges...andmorechallenges.’DigitalPhilology7.1(Spring2018)7-34Ward,Aengus,ChristianKusi-Obodum,andPollyDuxfield,‘DigitaleditingandtheEstoriadeEspanna:ofXMLandCrowdsourcer’MedievalHispanicResearchSeminar,23/01/2015,(London:QueenMaryUniversityofLondon,2015)Wickham,Chris,MedievalEurope(NewHaven:YaleUniversityPress,2016)Wolchova,Natalie,‘HowAccurateisWikipedia?’LiveScience,24/01/2011,https://www.livescience.com/32950-how-accurate-is-wikipedia.html[accessed10/10/2017]Wollesen,JensT,‘Subspecieludi…TextandImagesinAlfonsoelSabio’sLibrodeAcedrex,DadoseTablas’,ZeitschriftfürKunstgeschichte53:3(1990)277-308Wright,Roger,‘TheConceptualDifferenceBetweenLatinandRomance:InventionorEvolution?’inRogerWright,(Ed.)LatinandtheRomanceLanguagesintheEarlyMiddleAges(Paperbackedition)(Pennsylvania:PennsylvaniaStateUniversityPress,1996)pp.103-113Wright,Roger,EarlyIbero-Romance:Twenty-onestudiesonlanguageandthetextsfromtheIberianPeninsulabetweentheRomanEmpireandtheThirteenthCentury(Delaware:JuandelaCuesta,1994)Wright,Roger,ElTratadodeCabreros(1206):Estudiosociofilológicodeunareformaortográfica(London:QueenMaryandWestfieldCollege,2000)Wright,Roger,‘Thepre-historyofwrittenSpanishandthethirteenth-centurynationalistzeitgeist',inJosédelValle(ed.),APoliticalHistoryofSpanish:TheMakingofaLanguage,(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,2013)pp.31-43
xxiv
MANUSCRIPTSCITED
AlfonsoX,CantigasdeSantaMaríaT(BibliotecadelMonasteriodeElEscorial,MST.I.1)AlfonsoX,CantigasdeSantaMaríaE(BibliotecadelMonasteriodeElEscorial,MSb.I.2)AlfonsoX,EstoriadeEspannaA(BibliotecaNacionaldeEspaña,MS8817)AlfonsoX,EstoriadeEspannaE1(BibliotecadelMonasteriodeElEscorial,MSY-i-2)AlfonsoX,EstoriadeEspannaE2(BibliotecadelMonasteriodeElEscorial,MSX-i-4)AlfonsoX,EstoriadeEspannaF(BibliotecaUniversitariadeSalamanca,MS2628)AlfonsoX,EstoriadeEspannaQ(BibliotecaNacionaldeEspaña,MS5795)AlfonsoX,EstoriadeEspannaSs(CajadeAhorrosdeSalamanca,MS40)AlfonsoX,GeneralestoriaI,(BibliotecaNacionaldeEspaña,MS816)AlfonsoX,GeneralestoriaV,(VaticanUrb.lat.MS539)AlfonsoX,Lapidario(BibliotecadelMonasteriodeElEscorial,MSH.i.5)AlfonsoX,LibrodelosJuegos(BibliotecadelMonasteriodeElEscorial,MST.I.6)CrónicadelsantoreydonFernandoD,(BibliotecaNacional,MS10273)Crónicadetresreyes,S(BibliotecaNacional,MS9233)CrónicadeveintereyesB(BibliotecaMenéndezPelayo,MS549)CrónicadeveintereyesC(BibliotecaNacionaldeEspaña,MS1.507)CrónicadeveintereyesF(BibliotecaNacionaldeEspaña,MS1.501)CrónicadeveintereyesG(BibliotecaNacionaldeEspaña,MS18.416)CrónicadeveintereyesJ(BibliotecadelMonasteriodeElEscorial,MSX-I-6)CrónicadeveintereyesK(BibliotecaUniversitariadeSalamanca,MS2.211)CrónicadeveintereyesL(BibliotecadelMonasteriodeElEscorial,MSX-TI-24)
xxv
CrónicadeveintereyesN(BibliotecadelMonasteriodeElEscorial,MSY-I-12)CrónicadeveintereyesN’(RealBiblioteca(Madrid),MS11-2347)CrónicadeveintereyesÑ(BibliotecaMenéndezPelayo,MS159)
top related