{"title":"古文字和书籍历史的数字方法:一些挑战,现在和未来","authors":"Peter A. Stokes","doi":"10.3389/fdigh.2015.00005","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Quantitative methods and the use of technology in paleography and book history are by no means new. The New Palaeographical Society took advantage of the latest printing techniques to produce its albums of facsimiles in the late nineteenth century (Thompson et al., 1903–1930); Jean Mallon began using film in the 1930s to illustrate the development of script (Poulle, 1977); Gilissen (1973) was applying statistical measures to script long before widespread access to computers; and even Mabillon (1681) used advanced printing methods in his foundational study of 1681. Smith (1938) applied innovations in photography for the recovery of damaged or illegible script in the 1930s, and Malachi Beit-Arie’s database of Hebrew manuscripts began in the 1960s and remains one of – probably – the most important works of quantitative codicology. This list is by no means complete, and it demonstrates a continued interest in finding new ways to help us understand books and documents. However, it is also clear that recent developments have dramatically transformed the field. It is now 10 years since publication of what is perhaps the seminal article in what has since become known as “digital” or “computational” paleography (Ciula, 2005). Much excellent work has been done since then, and the whole field of paleography has perhaps been reinvigorated as a result [see, for instance, Rehbein et al. (2009), Fischer et al. (2011), Nelson and Terras (2012), Hassner et al. (2013)]. Nevertheless, much remains to be done, both within paleography in the narrow sense and also, probably even more so, in other areas of book history and diplomatic. Regarding paleography, much work in the last 10 years has been done on questions of “who,” “when,” “where,” and “what”: what was written, by whom, when, and where? However, there is very much more to paleography than this. What about questions of technique, such as searching for “stabbing” strokes that might indicate a scribe used to writing on wax, or changes in scribal “equilibrium,” which might suggest expertise, forgery, or imitation (Stokes, 2011, 2014)?","PeriodicalId":227954,"journal":{"name":"Frontiers Digit. Humanit.","volume":"8 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2015-10-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"24","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Digital Approaches to Paleography and Book History: Some Challenges, Present and Future\",\"authors\":\"Peter A. Stokes\",\"doi\":\"10.3389/fdigh.2015.00005\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Quantitative methods and the use of technology in paleography and book history are by no means new. The New Palaeographical Society took advantage of the latest printing techniques to produce its albums of facsimiles in the late nineteenth century (Thompson et al., 1903–1930); Jean Mallon began using film in the 1930s to illustrate the development of script (Poulle, 1977); Gilissen (1973) was applying statistical measures to script long before widespread access to computers; and even Mabillon (1681) used advanced printing methods in his foundational study of 1681. Smith (1938) applied innovations in photography for the recovery of damaged or illegible script in the 1930s, and Malachi Beit-Arie’s database of Hebrew manuscripts began in the 1960s and remains one of – probably – the most important works of quantitative codicology. This list is by no means complete, and it demonstrates a continued interest in finding new ways to help us understand books and documents. However, it is also clear that recent developments have dramatically transformed the field. It is now 10 years since publication of what is perhaps the seminal article in what has since become known as “digital” or “computational” paleography (Ciula, 2005). Much excellent work has been done since then, and the whole field of paleography has perhaps been reinvigorated as a result [see, for instance, Rehbein et al. (2009), Fischer et al. (2011), Nelson and Terras (2012), Hassner et al. (2013)]. Nevertheless, much remains to be done, both within paleography in the narrow sense and also, probably even more so, in other areas of book history and diplomatic. Regarding paleography, much work in the last 10 years has been done on questions of “who,” “when,” “where,” and “what”: what was written, by whom, when, and where? However, there is very much more to paleography than this. What about questions of technique, such as searching for “stabbing” strokes that might indicate a scribe used to writing on wax, or changes in scribal “equilibrium,” which might suggest expertise, forgery, or imitation (Stokes, 2011, 2014)?\",\"PeriodicalId\":227954,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Frontiers Digit. Humanit.\",\"volume\":\"8 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2015-10-29\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"24\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Frontiers Digit. Humanit.\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3389/fdigh.2015.00005\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Frontiers Digit. Humanit.","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3389/fdigh.2015.00005","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 24
摘要
定量方法和技术在古文字和书籍历史中的应用绝不是什么新鲜事。19世纪晚期,新古地形学学会利用最新的印刷技术制作了传真集(Thompson et al., 1903-1930);Jean Mallon在20世纪30年代开始用电影来说明剧本的发展(Poulle, 1977);早在计算机广泛使用之前,Gilissen(1973)就将统计方法应用于脚本;甚至马比隆(1681)在他1681年的基础研究中也使用了先进的印刷方法。史密斯(1938)在20世纪30年代应用了摄影技术的创新来恢复损坏或难以辨认的手稿,玛拉基·贝特-阿里的希伯来手稿数据库始于20世纪60年代,可能是定量法典学中最重要的作品之一。这个列表绝不是完整的,它表明了寻找新方法来帮助我们理解书籍和文档的持续兴趣。然而,同样明显的是,最近的发展已经极大地改变了这一领域。这篇文章可能是后来被称为“数字”或“计算”古文学的开创性文章(Ciula, 2005)发表至今已有10年。从那时起,许多优秀的工作已经完成,整个古文学领域可能因此而重新焕发活力[例如,参见Rehbein等人(2009),Fischer等人(2011),Nelson和Terras (2012), Hassner等人(2013)]。然而,还有很多工作要做,无论是在狭义的古文学领域,还是在书籍历史和外交的其他领域,可能都要做得更多。关于古文学,在过去的十年里,很多工作都是关于“谁”、“什么时候”、“什么地方”和“什么”的问题:什么是谁写的、什么时候写的、什么地方写的?然而,古生物学的内容远不止这些。那么技术方面的问题呢,比如寻找可能表明抄写员习惯在蜡上写字的“刺”笔划,或者抄写员“平衡”的变化,这可能表明专业知识、伪造或模仿(斯托克斯,2011年,2014年)?
Digital Approaches to Paleography and Book History: Some Challenges, Present and Future
Quantitative methods and the use of technology in paleography and book history are by no means new. The New Palaeographical Society took advantage of the latest printing techniques to produce its albums of facsimiles in the late nineteenth century (Thompson et al., 1903–1930); Jean Mallon began using film in the 1930s to illustrate the development of script (Poulle, 1977); Gilissen (1973) was applying statistical measures to script long before widespread access to computers; and even Mabillon (1681) used advanced printing methods in his foundational study of 1681. Smith (1938) applied innovations in photography for the recovery of damaged or illegible script in the 1930s, and Malachi Beit-Arie’s database of Hebrew manuscripts began in the 1960s and remains one of – probably – the most important works of quantitative codicology. This list is by no means complete, and it demonstrates a continued interest in finding new ways to help us understand books and documents. However, it is also clear that recent developments have dramatically transformed the field. It is now 10 years since publication of what is perhaps the seminal article in what has since become known as “digital” or “computational” paleography (Ciula, 2005). Much excellent work has been done since then, and the whole field of paleography has perhaps been reinvigorated as a result [see, for instance, Rehbein et al. (2009), Fischer et al. (2011), Nelson and Terras (2012), Hassner et al. (2013)]. Nevertheless, much remains to be done, both within paleography in the narrow sense and also, probably even more so, in other areas of book history and diplomatic. Regarding paleography, much work in the last 10 years has been done on questions of “who,” “when,” “where,” and “what”: what was written, by whom, when, and where? However, there is very much more to paleography than this. What about questions of technique, such as searching for “stabbing” strokes that might indicate a scribe used to writing on wax, or changes in scribal “equilibrium,” which might suggest expertise, forgery, or imitation (Stokes, 2011, 2014)?