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e-theses repository This unpublished thesis/dissertation is copyright of the author and/or third parties.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)