"Mapping Medieval Reading Practices - a social mapping of the mobility of Mukhtar al-Hikam" dw04...

Solve your problems or get new ideas with basic brainstorming

Get Started. It's Free
or sign up with your email address
"Mapping Medieval Reading Practices - a social mapping of the mobility of Mukhtar al-Hikam" [email protected] @DJWrisley by Mind Map: "Mapping Medieval Reading Practices - a social mapping of the mobility of Mukhtar al-Hikam"  dw04@aub.edu.lb  @DJWrisley

1. SAWs for Greek/Arabic/Syriac (KCL)

1.1. "Non abbiamo originali degli autori greci e romani, a parte, forse, qualche frammento su papiro di semisconosciuti letterati" (Canfora)

1.2. interlingual

1.3. non-stemmatological model

1.4. linked data model computationally suggests multiple transtextual borrowings

1.5. no manuscript images, only transcriptions

2. known witnesses of the Mukhtar al-Hikam

2.1. Arabic 10+ mss

2.2. Spanish 3 mss

2.3. Latin 20+ mss

2.4. French 70+ mss

2.5. Occitan 1 ms

2.6. English 3+ mss

3. mouvance

3.1. authorial anonymity

3.2. high degree of variance

3.3. modularity

3.4. le texte médiéval comme «hypothèse de travail» (Zumthor)

3.5. "integrity of the text orthe original authorial intent" (Kiss et al) almost irrelevant

3.6. Tracking the transmission of a text across cultures/languages can be more interesting than reconstructing an Ur-text (Crane)

4. textuality

4.1. "original" text heterogeneous

4.2. multitext issues in each language

4.3. text form (20+ lives and sayings of philosophers) more or less preserved

4.4. variance from functionality (Millett) - both sourcebook and repository

4.5. non-linearity (Kiss et al) / modularity

4.6. Lachmannian editorial approach eliminates data from polysystem

5. desiderata for a social map

5.1. polysystem as "map"

5.1.1. scalar sensitivity - "zoom in and out specific textual components" (Kiss et al)

5.2. images as medium

5.3. "interconnected layers of information" (Kiss et al)

5.3.1. inter- and intra-lingual functionality

5.4. individual witnesses alongside apparatuses (Kiss et al)

5.4.1. segmented, non-linear, and hierarchical reading

5.4.2. TILT - text to image alignment

5.5. annotations

5.5.1. "topographic collocation" (Pierazzo) and partial transcriptions of zones of variance

5.5.2. polygon annotation of digitized mss and illuminations (ABO)

5.5.3. topographic annotation of codicological features

5.6. necessary scalabilty

5.7. "ability to select preferred textual witness and read it detached from [or interconnected with] the entire textual tradition" like Homer multitext (Kiss et al) and visualize pertinent annotations

6. medieval reading/modern edition

6.1. omission/interpolation

6.2. variance - length, syntax, structure

6.3. fluidity and openness (Kiss et al)

6.4. thinking about bridging the old/new philology (Kiss et al)

6.5. The digital environment does not require such parsimonious handling of surviving sources, as it has the potential to represent texts in a way that reflects their medieval existence. (Kiss et al)

7. map as workspace

7.1. spawn literary scholarship / new critical editions

7.2. there is nowhere "to stop" (Pierazzo)

7.3. VRE for medievalists to imagine/represent texts in time and space

7.4. tolerant of competing/debating editorial aesthetics

7.5. describe and shape topography of intercultural, translingual transmission

7.6. asymptotic approach of polysystemic complexity (Rosenblueth/Wiener via Pierazzo)

7.7. meta-medieval editing