This paper offers a response to Roger Bagnall’s contribution on Digital Papyrology, but a proper response to this particular topic requires addressing the broader topic behind this workshop: the reinvention of editing in a digital age. More than a decade ago, at a conference at MIT, Jerome McGann remarked in passing that we were entering a great age of editing. These words were not among his prepared remarks—when this programmatic remark was called to his attention several years later, he had forgotten the words but warmly endorsed the sentiment. The papers in this workshop suggest the impending truth of that prophetic remark. Scanning books and generating transcriptions is the incunabular phase of digital publication.1 We need to rethink the goals of editing in the light of the possibilities and challenges of emergent digital media.2 We are not entering—we have already entered and will never leave—a new intellectual space, where the speed and the distance between question and answer is qualitatively different from that for which we were trained.

In a digital world where we can publish video and sound and where we can annotate space, we need to extend our vision of editing beyond linguistic sources. In his paper for this collection, Ken Price talks about “topic-based editing,” of which his own Civil War Washington3 provides one example.4HyperCities5 illustrates the opportunities of annotating coordinates in space and time, allowing us to trace such events as the turmoil in Tehran after the 2009 Iranian elections and a tumultuous succession of public buildings over the past century in Berlin. Alison Muri’s Grub Street Project6 sets out to bring an entire moment in history to life. If we are to publish documents—especially documents as enmeshed with their material and cultural context as tweets from Tehran or newspapers from eighteenth century London or nineteenth century Washington, we need to embed them within rich cultural databases and to imagine our textual annotations as links into geographic, visual, quantitative, and textual data.

Within this essay, I restrict myself to the editing of textual sources, but within that field I understand editing in a very broad sense as making our primary textual sources usable for scholarly work. If we take this as an intellectual model, then a wide range of document-centric publications is relevant. These include not only facsimile, diplomatic, and critical editions but also translations, commentaries, and even specialized lexica and indices—documents that are hypertextual in nature, largely composed of individual annotations and expositions upon named portions of a primary source.7 The boundary between editing in this sense and other categories of publication is, in this case (as in almost any classification task), fuzzy. Essays in expository prose that largely follow the structure of a document to elicit an interpretation should probably be considered as well. At least some such studies would be better served if published as hypertextual guides through a document, directing a reader’s focus to one passage after another and using chunks of argumentation to draw out various features of the primary source and comparanda.8 The instinct for such publications is deep, and early forms of such hypertextual publications have appeared in various guises (PerseusPaths, Walden’s Paths,9 etc.).

I advance two basic hypotheses:

1) We need editors—lots of them. We have before us a new model of intellectual life in general and especially within the humanities. We have valued scholarship that is difficult to produce and almost as difficult to understand. When a 2009 tenure track job listing asked for candidates who can support contributions and original research by undergraduates as well as MA students within the field of Classics, almost none of nearly two hundred applicants had been trained to think about what MA-level students, much less undergraduates, could contribute to the field or about what meaningful research they might be able to conduct.10 A few had creative ideas and had even experimented in their teaching but they had done so outside of—and in some measure in spite of—their formal training. Most of those with whom we spoke shifted uncomfortably in their chairs as we pressed them on this point.

We have vast amounts of work before us—far more than a relative handful of salaried academics can accomplish and plenty accessible to our students and to those who love a given subject but maintain a day job doing something else.11 We need to edit the entire record of humanity. Brute digitization provides physical access to digital representations that are qualitatively more useful than anything possible in print—print publication constitutes only a small dimensional reduction of the space in which we now move. At least as important, we have at our disposal a growing set of analytical tools that can make these sources intellectually as well as physically accessible.12 At one end, we can detect not only words and phrases but also ideas in vast collections of data—the bigger the better, in fact.13 The same currents that flatten individual human analysts provide the lift on which many of our algorithms can soar, allowing us to find within vast collections patterns that yield themselves to deep contemplation—and indeed, to the most traditional of intensive reading.14 At the other end, we can now automatically generate background information—a workable commentary—with which to contextualize what we see. And we have begun to attack the greatest of all logistical barriers in intellectual life—the heretofore impenetrable barrier of language. In print culture, we could do nothing with documents in languages that we had not studied. Already today, if we combine machine translation of individual words as well as passages, morphological and syntactic analysis, dictionary lookup, and text mining we can begin to work with sources that were once inaccessible.15

Vast collections and clever services provide a starting point for human analysis. Consider one particular example from my own field. Most Latin literature was produced after, and much builds upon, the tiny surviving corpus of Classical Latin.16 We have an endless supply of intellectually accessible and eminently useful undergraduate and MA-level projects, with our students building upon their training in Classics, analyzing the results of automated systems, and producing introductions, commentaries, and annotated translations of individual documents. We can then publish these as components of increasingly sophisticated digital libraries that can parse their structure and mine the machine-actionable information within them: the scholarly labor applied to each edited document becomes training data that then improves the automated results for the rest of the document in question, as well as the corpus of digital Latin.17 If we move towards community-driven models of updating and preserving such editions, preserving the original contributions within a versioning system but allowing the documents to evolve as their authors pursue their careers, these editions can serve as starting points rather than as fixed and obsolescent snapshots.

If we understand editing as the process of enabling others to think about an object from the past, then the editorial process applies as much to spaces (e.g., the development of the Unter den Linden in Berlin), buildings (e.g., the Brandenburg Gate), and objects (e.g., the Quadriga atop the Brandenburg Gate, a chariot drawn by four horses driven by Victoria, the Roman goddess of victory), as to topics (e.g., the development of Prussian nationalism of which Unter den Linden and the Brandenburg Gate are expressions).

Editors can be as much artists as scholars, for the editor who contextualizes an object directs the reader, listener or viewer to a finite set of data that align themselves into meaningful patterns. Editors in this sense differ from authors insofar as they direct their audiences’ gaze away from themselves and towards the object of contemplation. The point is not to vanish—to vanish is to deceive and to imply a transparency that simply does not exist. Rather, editors must provide the clearest possible account of their own biases.18 In this, they resemble their colleagues in the sciences, who explain how the data was collected and how they conducted their experiments so that others can draw their own conclusions about the strengths and limitations of their work.

2) In a digital age, philologists need to treat our editions as components of larger, well-defined corpora rather than as the raw material for printed page layouts.19 Many may take this as obvious but few have pursued the implications of this general idea. The addition of punctuation, the use of upper case to mark proper names, specialized glossaries, the addition of name and place indices, and even translations prefigure major classes of machine-actionable annotation—interpretations of morphological and syntax analyses, lexical entries, word senses, co-reference, named entities are only a subset of the features we may choose to include as new practices of editing emerge. Even when we turn to the most heavily studied classical Greek and Latin texts, a radically new world is taking shape. We have returned to an age of the editio princeps—not literally the first edition, but the first edition in a medium so distinct from that which preceded it that it constitutes a new beginning. We see before us a great age—indeed, a heroic age, one filled with triumphs and false starts, messy, destabilized and destabilizing, and, above all, dynamic.

The remainder of this paper will focus primarily upon the new forms of editing and their consequences. But before exploring those consequences, we will first outline some basic goals based upon the changing possibilities within the digital culture.

Strategic goals are slippery things. The following have proven useful to me and I offer them if only to explain the decisions implicit in what I will describe later. I offer implications that I have drawn from three largely hierarchical perspectives: the humanities as a whole, the study of the Greco-Roman world, and the responsibilities of a Classical Philologist.

Editors of classical texts have for the most part focused on the challenge of reconstructing an original copy text. All scribes make errors and even relatively small error rates add up in a single manuscript. As texts are copied, they accumulate new errors. In some cases, relatively large texts survive with relatively few obvious errors—the 600,000 words of Plato present relatively few problems. In other cases, much shorter texts can become garbled in transmission, especially when only a few or even simply one manuscript survive—the 35,000 words in the seven surviving plays of Aeschylus are notoriously problematic. When print allowed scholars to publish hundreds and thousands of identical copies, transmission stabilized and scholars set out to undo the damage. Classicists published thousands of editions from the editions principes of the late fifteenth century through the great systematic editions of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries.48

Scholarship was so successful that classicists in the closing decades of the twentieth century shifted their focus away from editing and commentaries and more fully embraced the monograph-oriented publication culture of English and History. While we do find faculty at leading institutions who create editions and commentaries, most of these either work on less developed areas (e.g., Byzantine studies or less commonly read classical authors), or in areas such as papyrology, where new material needs to be edited and published, or came of age in the 1960s and 1970s. Thus a 2008 panel of the American Philological Association (APA) on “Critical Editions in the 21^st century,” organized by Cynthia Damon, included scholars who worked on papyri, Medieval Latin, Greek science, and Byzantine literature. James McKeown, an editor of Ovid, and Donald Mastronarde, an editor of Euripides, received their BAs in 1974 and 1971 respectively.

Classicists do not appreciate the amount of scholarly labor at their disposal. The Bryn Mawr Classical Review (BMCR)49 included 3,008 reviews in the five years beginning with 2005 and running through 2010—approximately 600 reviews each year.50 Clearly, there will be some hastily produced works while others will reflect years of study. We might assume, conservatively, that the average item reflects one year of direct labor. For every dollar that we pay a faculty member, we need to assume a dollar for benefits (e.g., health care) and the complex overhead of running an institution of higher learning. If we assume $50,000 as a typical salary, then the cost of a year of academic labor is around $100,000. In other words, even if we ignore all the articles that classicists write and only consider those books that warrant reviews in BMCR, the 600 or so reviews each year represent, by a conservative estimate, more than $50 million dollars of labor.

Of 704 entries counted in the 2009 BMCR volume, a quick survey turned up only 28 for editions and commentaries—or around four percent of the total.

Another preliminary survey reinforced this figure. An analysis of 100 CVs (from a total of about 180) for a position in Philology advertised in the fall of 2009 revealed only three with an interest in producing editions and commentaries.

In effect, classicists as a group have made a cost/benefit decision to allocate less than approximately five percent of their labor to the production of editions and commentaries. Improving the print infrastructure for the fifty million words of Greek and Latin that survive in manuscript transmission through about 500 CE was not a high priority—the benefits were no longer great enough to justify much scholarly labor. Rather, we invested our energy in interpretive articles and monographs.

A number of factors have altered the cost and benefits of editing within the humanities. Each project participating in this workshop reflects, in varying ways, the subsequent recalculations of how to invest scholarly labor.

1) Our editions can reach a larger audience. First and most obviously, we can provide much better physical access to editions and commentaries, disseminating across space and preserving them over time.51 We are now—and have for years been—able to deliver the results of our work to a global audience—reaching hundreds of millions rather than thousands of locations. We also have in our institutional repositories a mechanism to preserve these editions over long periods of time—certainly providing far longer access than the ephemeral print runs common in traditional publication. The guarantor is not the medium—paper vs. digital—but the reorganization of our library priorities.52 We have the resources already in our library collection budgets to pay for dissemination and preservation. The questions are political and social rather than financial or technical.

2) A larger audience can make use of our editions. As we can see with the Advanced Papyrological Information System (APIS)53 and with the Homer Multitext Project,54 digital representations in 2d and 3d of manuscripts, papyri, inscriptions and other written artifacts can provide better visual data than any print facsimile edition could match.55 We can, as Peter Robinson has long demonstrated, encode the textual data in machine-actionable forms that allow us to analyze and visualize variants with greater precision.56 We can link Greek and Latin editions to modern language translations, either produced for the edition or already published elsewhere. We can add as much explanatory material as we have the time to produce and as we consider useful, including visual and textual explanations, static images, and dynamic visualizations. We can align our primary sources with the material record, not simply as a source for illustrations but to provide contrasting views of the lived world on which the textual and material record shed light.

3) Systematic annotation transforms the editorial process, redefines what readers can expect, and enables editions to interact directly with much larger collections. Our ability to annotate our primary sources has so far outstripped what we could do in print that annotation has evolved into something qualitatively different. We have long had indices of places, but efforts such as the Hestia Project have created machine-actionable databases with which to analyze the spatial relations implicit in our sources. For millennia, students of Greek and Latin have patiently answered such questions as: “What is the main verb?” “What is the subject?” and “What noun does this adjective modify?” When we systematically record the syntactic dependencies into a database and create treebanks of syntactically-analyzed sentences, we can convert impressionistic statements such as “common in tragedy” or “rare in late prose” into statements that are quantifiable and transparent, because we can call up the treebank and examine the decisions behind the numbers.57 We have always embedded our syntactic interpretations in our print editions—each comma and period reflects our interpretation of the language. Now we can make those assumptions explicit and then use them to support new questions and research.58 And, at the same time, the treebanks that support large-scale linguistic analysis can help the reader understand a complex sentence in Plato and thus expand the role that sentence can play in intellectual life. Here, as so often, we find the automated system and human observer interacting symbiotically, with each driving the other.

4) We need to shift from lone editorials and monumental editions to editors as … editors, who coordinate contributions from many sources and oversee living editions.59 We have vast amounts of work to be done as we create new generations of editions. Automated methods can detect patterns across the billions of words and hundreds of languages, but even automated methods often depend upon carefully curated data. We need diplomatic XML transcriptions of manuscripts and papyri. We need translations into modern languages, not only for human readers but also to support such automated methods as parallel text analysis. We need curated syntactic analysis for our treebanks. We have an endless supply of projects that are challenging but accessible to our students and that will increase in complexity as they move through their careers. They may start by analyzing sentences or distinguishing one Alexander from another but they can also begin to analyze linguistic, stylistic, intellectual, historical and other questions. We will—and must—depend upon a generation of fundamental scholarly work produced by our students, published online, linked to the passages on which they bear, and preserved indefinitely.

5) Digital editing lowers barriers to entry and requires a more democratized and participatory intellectual culture. The decentralization of editing is a necessity that has further consequences. A fall 2009 listing for a tenure track job welcomed “candidates who can support contributions and original research by undergraduates as well as MA students within the field of Classics.” This seemingly innocuous term flummoxed almost all of the 180 or so applicants to this position—most simply ignored it. Some had creative ideas but these were ideas they had developed themselves. The intellectual culture of Classical studies assumes a long apprenticeship model, with advanced graduate students working their way toward a point where they can publish articles in specialist journals and books in academic presses.60

In a culture of digital editing, our students can begin contributing in tangible ways as soon as they can read Greek—first-year Greek students are already able to distinguish text from commentary in the digitized Venetus A manuscript of Homer.61 Intermediate students of Greek and Latin offer their own analyses of individual sentences for the Greek and Latin treebanks—contributions that are then compared against each other and then added to a public database, with the names of each contributing student attached to each sentence.62 These contributions can develop seamlessly into undergraduate and MA theses of real value and immediate use. When our students publish previously unpublished material or contribute to knowledge bases, we find ourselves in a participatory culture of active learning. Pale clichés about citizenship and democratization suddenly become tangible.

There is nothing innovative in having undergraduates contribute to and then conduct research within a field—promising students in the sciences, for example, regularly begin working in laboratories, taking measurements or conducting technical procedures, and then develop experiments of their own. Classics is—or should be—a demanding field, but no more so than the sciences.

In the second half of the twentieth century, we developed courses and degrees in classical studies that removed or minimized the burden of mastering Greek and Latin. We are now in a position to create another path through the field, one that can be as challenging as any curriculum we have offered in the past but that also engages our students as collaborators.

6) The emerging digital environment can potentially allow editors to accomplish more with the same degree of effort. Word processing, high-resolution digital images, and email alone have changed the way in which editors can carry out their traditional tasks. The millions of dollars and euros invested in digital editing should have made traditional editorial practices faster and less expensive. The problem is, of course, that digital tools change what is possible and challenge us to redefine our tasks, making older models inappropriate—feature creep from one perspective, renaissance from another. Adding syntactic analyses for every word in a text, for example, should not significantly increase the overall editorial task—the real effort lies, or should lie, in thinking about each and every word in the text. If anything, editors should spend more time thinking about different interpretations for each sentence, knowing that they can publish these alternate interpretations in a form that can be visualized or analyzed.

Beyond simple calculations of time and money and the new questions we can ask, there is a chance that new scholarly instruments such as treebanks may allow us to make progress with thorny questions of reconstructing even our best-studied texts. We will certainly be able to frame arguments about various readings and conjectures when we have new and extended linguistic comparanda. Even if we avoid the idea of progress in reconstructing classical texts (and in this case, progress is a plausible category because in many cases we are trying to reconstruct a single source), we can at least provide new evidence with which to advance our discussions.

The previous section described changes in the cost-benefit calculations that we as scholars make that bear upon the role of editing. This section shifts the focus and examines three dimensions by which to evaluate the current and emerging impact of digital scholarship. While I have selected several projects as exemplary for particular advances, I do not mean to imply that any one project only represents a single category.

1) Advancing established scholarship. Digital environments only exert long-term change if they first address the well-understood problems and aspirations of scholarship.63 Roger Bagnall’s piece on the rise of digital papyrology documents what is arguably the biggest success story within the digital humanities. Papyrologists from different institutions and nations have collaborated over a period of years to transform their core materials into shared digital collections and to create a functional digital environment for the shared editing of new texts.64 Several factors are at play. Papyrologists have new material that they need to publish. The traditional audience is not huge and thus there are fewer problems with rights holders restricting open-access publication. Most of all, there is what Ulrich Wilcken (1862-1944) long ago phrased the amicitia papyrologorum,65 a distinctively and consciously collegial relationship among papyrologists and a determination to support each other and their field. The amicitia papyrologorum, imperfect and intermittent as it may be, is nevertheless an extraordinary achievement and has conferred upon papyrology a competitive advantage in the fierce Darwinian struggle of academic disciplines. The rise of Digital Papyrology both reflects and increases this advantage. Technology progress begins with our attitudes towards our colleagues and depends upon our ability to place some shared good above our quarrels and personal advantages.

2) Enabling new research. Every project represented in this workshop is expanding the frontiers of research beyond what was possible in print. I would highlight a project now getting under way that attacks a very traditional goal but is proceeding in a way that is only possible through the combination of advanced automated methods, very powerful computing and very large collections. The history of Latin is hardly a new subject, but we can place this project on a radically new footing. David A. Smith, who holds a Ph.D. in Computer Science and a B.A. in Classics, is one of the principal investigators for a four-year, $2.5 million project funded by the National Science Foundation (NSF).66 He has downloaded more than 1.5 million books from the Internet Archive and from these has identified twelve thousand whose language is listed as being Latin. The resulting collection contains approximately1.8 billion words of Latin—almost two hundred times as much Latin as the ten-million–word database on which the TLL has labored for more than a century. If and when we should have access to the twelve million books that Google has already scanned, the collection of available Latin will only increase. Library metadata is, however, rough—we cannot, for example, distinguish the nineteenth-century Latin introduction from an accompanying edition of Cicero, and many books are cited by the date of the published edition (e.g., 1879 in Paris) rather than that of their original creation (e.g., 1623 in Leiden). There are multiple copies of the same author (e.g., ten editions of Horace). Organizing this rough assemblage will provide plenty of opportunity for advanced automated methods. Nevertheless, we now already have in hand the raw materials with which to rewrite the history of the Latin language over the course of two thousand years. Automated analysis with systematic sampling to evaluate error rates redefines the way in which we can conceptualize new research in this subject.

In print culture, Arabic speaking scholars of the Greco-Roman world had little access to, and less visibility within, the largely English, French, German and Italian publication space of classical scholarship. In a networked world where such knowledge bases as treebanks emerge as pre-eminent channels within which to publish interpretations of literary text, the first language of the scholar becomes less important. We are better positioned to establish new intellectual and collegial relationships across challenging barriers of space, language and culture.

3) Redefining who can contribute to scholarship. In this regard, Wikipedia remains an historic phenomenon because it has demonstrated a new mode of intellectual production—one that this philologist thought was at best implausible until Roy Rosenzweig confronted my prejudices with evidence and analysis.67 Classicists had developed their own community-driven project with the Suda Online (SOL),68 which has so far produced English translations for more than 27,000 entries from a large tenth-century Byzantine Greek historical encyclopedia of the ancient world. The SOL, however, mobilized professional scholars and included a fairly traditional editorial process.69 The most important project for Classical scholarship in the United States may be the Homer Multitext, because this project demonstrated not only what undergraduates could do in a very complex project but also the effect of participation in this project on their work and on their view of classics. The Homer Multitext defied my own personal expectations as to what undergraduates would do or would find interesting.

Digital editing lowers barriers to access not only for our students but also for students of Greek and Latin beyond the traditional English-speaking and Western European centers of Classical studies. The University of Cairo maintains a well-established and flourishing Classics department—few North American or European institutions can, for example, boast an intermediate Classical Greek class with more than one hundred students. Instruction takes place in Arabic and the departmental website has no translation in English or any other European language. The Classicists at Cairo and elsewhere in the Arabic speaking world are familiar with scholarship in a range of modern languages, but few indeed of us in Europe or North America are able to read their Arabic publications.

If we are developing a digital edition with morpho-syntactic analyses, disambiguated people and places, and other categories of machine-actionable annotation, our knowledge of Greek and Latin and our understanding of Greco-Roman culture are the most important factors. A diagram of a sentence from Aeschylus looks the same whether the scholar who produced that analysis thinks in English, Arabic or Chinese. The problem of language emerges as we articulate our reasons for choosing that interpretation of the sentence—we may find ourselves constructing hypertextual arguments that emerge, as much as possible, from the way we select and structure evidence. We also need to address the challenge of writing for machine translation. This would benefit from an authoring environment that would prompt us to clarify salient ambiguities as we write (e.g., does “case” refer to a grammatical category or a criminal investigation?).

We have an opportunity to transform the community of scholarship and our ability to stimulate, from within the academy, the broad intellectual life of humanity. For Classics, we have an opportunity to create a global discipline that disseminates knowledge and stimulates debate about Greco-Roman antiquity across the linguistic and cultural barriers that we inherited from print culture.

A great deal has been done over the past twenty-five years. We have established collections that have evolved over a number of years and long outlived initial grants and enthusiasm. Roger Bagnall, Allison Muri, Greg Nagy, and Kenneth Price have described disciplinary projects with overlapping needs. Alan Burdette, Charles Henry, Paolo D’Iorio, Penelope Kaiserlian, and Todd Presner have reported substantive progress towards an infrastructure that can support scholarly activities today and foster innovation over time. But we have a long way to go. We need to think on a far broader scale and move much further beyond our original disciplines if we are to realize the potential of this new medium. We are still far too fragmented and constrained by our disciplinary perspective or the traditions of publication that we have inherited. Much of what we say echoes what we could have heard a generation ago. All of us need to move beyond first-generation efforts and do a better job of transcending our own disciplinary boundaries.

As a philologist with a particular responsibility for linguistic sources, I pose the following questions:

None of us can solve or fully understand any of these three questions. We all have our own research projects and must focus our efforts if we are to make tangible progress. Nevertheless, the digital world has no borders and every digital project can potentially interact with each other. My work on the Greek historian Thucydides should combine in unpredictable and interesting ways with work on the Chinese historian Sima Qian, the North African historian Ibn Chaldun, and the memoirs of Ulysses S. Grant—the more recombinant my work, the better its chance not only of surviving but evolving long after my contribution has ceased. We all know the cliché that we should think globally and act locally. Whatever we do for the world in which we live, we should think about each of the global and the local every day in our scholarly work.

Alcock, Susan E. and Robin Osborne. (2007). Classical Archaeology. Malden, Ma: Blackwell Publishers.

Association of Research Libraries (ARL). (2009). The Research Library's Role in Digital Repository Services: Final Report of the ARL Digital Repository Issues Task Force. Technical Report. http://www.arl.org/bm~doc/repository-services-report.pdf.

Arms, William Y. and Ronald L. Larsen. (2007). The Future of Scholarly Communication: Building the Infrastructure for Cyberscholarship. Technical Report. http://www.sis.pitt.edu/~repwkshop/SIS-NSFReport2.pdf.

Babeu, Alison, David Bamman, Gregory Crane, Robert Kummer, and Gabriel Weaver. (2007). “Named Entity Identification and Cyberinfrastructure.” Proceedings of the 11th European Conference on Research and Advanced Technology for Digital Libraries (ECDL 2007), pp. 259-270. http://hdl.handle.net/10427/42681.

Bamman, David and Gregory Crane. (2009). “Computational Linguistics and Classical Lexicography.” Digital Humanities Quarterly, 3 (1), http://www.digitalhumanities.org/dhq/vol/003/1/000033.html.

Bamman, David and Gregory Crane. (2008a). “Building a Dynamic Lexicon from a Digital Library.” Proceedings of the 8th ACM/IEEE-CS Joint Conference on Digital Libraries (JCDL 2008), pp. 11-20. http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/~ababeu/fp135-bamman.pdf.

Bamman, David and Gregory Crane. (2008b). “The Logic and Discovery of Textual Allusion.” Proceedings of the Second Workshop on Language Technology for Cultural Heritage Data (LaTeCH 2008). http://hdl.handle.net/10427/42685.

Bamman, David, Francesco Mambrini and Gregory Crane. (2009). “An Ownership Model of Annotation: The Ancient Greek Dependency Treebank.” Proceedings of the Eighth International Workshop on Treebanks and Linguistic Theories (TLT8). http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/~ababeu/tlt8.pdf.

Barker, Elton. (2010). “Repurposing Perseus: the Herodotus Encoded Space-Text-Image Archive (HESTIA).” DFG-Perseus Workshop on Historical Texts. http://www.linguistik.hu-berlin.de/institut/professuren/korpuslinguistik/events-en/nehdfg/pdf/hestia-presentation.

Blackwell, Chris and Thomas R. Martin. (2009). “Technology, Collaboration, and Undergraduate Research.” Digital Humanities Quarterly, 3 (1). http://www.digitalhumanities.org/dhq/vol/3/1/000024.html .

Blanke, Tobias. (2010). “From Tools and Services to e-Infrastructure for the Arts and Humanities.” Production Grids in Asia: Applications, Developments and Global Ties, pp. 117-127.

Bodard, Gabriel. (2008). “The Inscriptions of Aphrodisias as Electronic Publication: a User's Perspective and a Proposed Paradigm.” Digital Medievalist, http://www.digitalmedievalist.org/journal/4/bodard/.

Bodard, Gabrel and Juan Garcés. (2009). “Open Source Critical Editions: A Rationale.” In Text Editing, Print and the Digital World.Surrey, England: Ashgate Publishing, pp. 83-98.

Boeckh, August. (1966). “die Erkentniss des Alterthums in seinem ganzen Umfange” in Enzyklopädie und Methodenlehre der philologischen Wissenschaft (edited by Ernst Bratuscheck). Darmstadt.

Boeckh, August. (1968). On Interpretation and Criticism (translated by John Paul Pritchard). Oklahoma: University of Oklahoma Press.

Boschetti, Federico. (2009). “Digital Aeschylus—Breadth and Depth Issues in Digital Libraries.” Workshop on Advanced Technologies for Digital Libraries 2009 (AT4DL 2009). September 2009.

Boschetti, Federico, Matteo Romanello, Alison Babeu, David Bamman, and Gregory Crane. (2009). “Improving OCR Accuracy for Classical Critical Editions.” Proceedings of the 13th European Conference on Research and Advanced Technology for Digital Libraries (ECDL 2009), pp. 156-167. http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/~ababeu/ecdl2009-preprint.pdf.

Calder III, William M. (1991). “How Did Ulrich Von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff Read a Text?” The Classical Journal, 86 (4), (Apr. - May, 1991), pp. 344-352.

Chen, Jiangping, Yuhua Li, and Gang Li. (2006). “The Use of Intelligent Information Access Technologies in Digital Libraries.” Web Information Systems—WISE 2006 Workshops, pp. 239-250.

Clement, Tanya E. (2008). “‘A Thing Not Beginning and Not Ending’: Using Digital Tools to Distant-Read Gertrude Stein’s The Making of Americans.” Literary & Linguistic Computing, 23 (3), pp. 361-381.

Crane, Gregory, Alison Babeu, and David Bamman. (2007). “eScience and the Humanities.” International Journal on Digital Libraries, 7 (1), pg. 117-122. http://hdl.handle.net/10427/42690.

Crane, Gregory, Alison Babeu, David Bamman, Thomas Breuel, Lisa Cerrato, Daniel Deckers, Anke Lüdeling, Daid Mimno, Rashmi Singhal, David A. Smith, and Amir Zeldes. (2009a). “Classics in the Million Book Library.” Digital Humanities Quarterly, 3 (1). http://www.digitalhumanities.org/dhq/vol/003/1/000034.html.

Crane, Gregory, Alison Babeu, David Bamman, Lisa Cerrato, and Rashmi Singhal. “Tools for Thinking: ePhilology and Cyberinfrastructure.” (2009b). Working Together of Apart: Promoting the Next Generation of Digital Scholarship: Report of a Workshop Cosponsored by the Council on Library and Information Resources and The National Endowment for the Humanities. Washington, D. C. United States: Co-Sponsored by: Council on Library and Information Resources National Endowment for the Humanities, 2009-03. http://www.clir.org/activities/digitalscholar2/crane11_11.pdf.

Crane, Gregory, David Bamman, Lisa Cerrato, Alison Jones, David Mimno, Adrian Packel, David Sculley, and Gabriel Weaver. (2006). “Beyond Digital Incunabula: Modeling the Next Generation of Digital Libraries.” Proceedings of the 10th European Conference on Digital Libraries (ECDL 2006), pp. 353-366. http://hdl.handle.net/10427/36131.

Crane, Gregory and Chris Blackwell. (2009). “Conclusion: Cyberinfrastructure, the Scaife Digital Library and Classics in a Digital Age.” Digital Humanities Quarterly, 3 (1). http://www.digitalhumanities.org/dhq/vol/3/1/000035.html.

Crane, Gregory, Brent Seales, and Melissa Terras. (2009). “Cyberinfrastructure for Classical Philology.” Digital Humanities Quarterly, 3 (1). http://www.digitalhumanities.org/dhq/vol/3/1/000023.html#.

Deckers, Daniel, Lutz Koll, and Cristina Vertan. (2009). “Representation and Encoding of Heterogeneous Data in a Web Based Research Environment for Manuscript and Textual Studies.” Kodikologie und Paläographie im digitalen—Zeitalter-Codicology and Palaeography in the Digital Age. http://kups.ub.uni-koeln.de/volltexte/2009/2962/.

Dué, Casey and Mary Ebbott. (2009). “Digital Criticism: Editorial Standards for the Homer Multitext.” Digital Humanities Quarterly, 3 (1). http://www.digitalhumanities.org/dhq/vol/3/1/000029/000029.html.

Flaten, Arne R. (2009). “The Ashes2Art Project: Digital Models of Fourth-Century BCE Delphi, Greece.” Visual Resources: An International Journal of Documentation, 25 (4), pp. 345-362.

Hanson, Ann E. (2001). “Papyrology: Minding Other People's Business.” Transactions of the American Philological Association, 131, 297-313.

Hillen, Michael. (2007). “Finishing the TLL in the Digital Age: Opportunities, Challenges, Risks.” (Translated by Kathleen Coleman). Transactions of the American Philological Association, 137, pp. 491-495.

Jackson, Mike, Mario Antonioletti, Alastair Hume, Tobias Blanke, Gabriel Bodard, Mark Hedges, and Shrija Rajbhandari. (2009). “Building Bridges between Islands of Data - An Investigation into Distributed Data Management in the Humanities.” e-Science ’09: Fifth IEEE International Conference on e-Science, 2009, pp. 33-39.

Kirschenbaum, Matthew. (2007). “The Remaking of Reading: Data Mining and the Digital Humanities.” NGDM 07: National Science Foundation Symposium on Next Generation of Data Mining and Cyber-Enabled Discovery for Innovation. http://www.cs.umbc.edu/~hillol/NGDM07/abstracts/talks/MKirschenbaum.pdf.

Kummer, Robert. (2006). “Integrating Data from The Perseus Project and Arachne using the CIDOC CRM: An Examination from a Software Developer's Perspective.” Exploring the Limits of Global Models for Integration and Use of Historical and Scientific Information: ICS-FORTH Workshop, Heraklion, Crete: ICS-Forth, 2006. http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/~rokummer/KummerCIDOC2006.pdf.

Lehmberg, Timm, Georg Rehm, Andreas Witt, and Felix. (2008). “Digital Text Collections, Linguistic Research Data, and Mashups: Notes on the Legal Situation.” Library Trends, 57 (1), pp. 52-72.

Lüdeling, Anke and Amir Zeldes. (2008). “Three Views on Corpora: Corpus Linguistics, Literary Computing, and Computational Linguistics.” Jahrbuch für Computerphilologie,9, pp. 49-178.

Lynch, Clifford. (2006). “Open Computation: Beyond Human-Reader-Centric Views of Scholarly Literatures.” Open Access: Key Strategic, Technical and Economic Aspects, pp. 106-110. http://www.cni.org/staff/cliffpubs/OpenComputation.htm.

Mahoney, Anne. (2009). “Tachypaedia Byzantina: The Suda On Line as Collaborative Encyclopedia.” Digital Humanities Quarterly, 3 (1). http://www.digitalhumanities.org/dhq/vol/3/1/000025.html#.

Monella, Paolo. (2008). “Towards a Digital Model to Edit the Different Paratextuality Levels within a Textual Tradition.” Digital Medievalist, 4, http://www.digitalmedievalist.org/journal/4/monella/.

O’Donnell, Daniel Paul. (2010). “Different Strokes, Same Folk: Designing the Multi-Form Digital Edition.” Literature Compass, 7 (2), pp. 110-119.

Pasanek, Brad and D. Sculley. (2008). “Mining Millions of Metaphors.” Literary and Linguistic Computing, 23 (3), pp. 345-360.

Price, Kenneth M. (2009). “Edition, Project, Database, Archive, Thematic Research Collection: What's in a Name?” Digital Humanities Quarterly, 3 (3). http://digitalhumanities.org/dhq/vol/3/3/000053/000053.html.

Pritchard, David. (2008). “Working Papers, Open Access, and Cyber-infrastructure in Classical Studies.” Literary and Linguistic Computing 23 (2), pp. 149-162. http://ses.library.usyd.edu.au/handle/2123/2226 .

Pybus, John and Ruth Kirkham. (2009). “Experiences of User Involvement in the Construction of a Virtual Research Environment for the Humanities.” 5th IEEE International Conference on E-Science Workshops, pp.135-137.

Rausing, Lisbet. (2010). “Toward a New Alexandria: Imagining the Future of Libraries.” The New Republic (March 2010). http://www.tnr.com/print/article/books-and-arts/toward-new-alexandria.

Riva, Massimo and Vika Zafrin. (2005). “Extending the Text: Digital Editions and the Hypertextual Paradigm.” HYPERTEXT '05: Proceedings of the sixteenth ACM conference on Hypertext and Hypermedia, pp. 205-207.

Robinson, Peter. (2010). “Editing Without Walls.” Literature Compass, 7 (2), pp. 57-61.

Robinson, Peter. (2009). “Towards a Scholarly Editing System for the Next Decades.” Sanskrit Computational Linguistics, pp. 346-357.

Rosenzweig, Roy. (2006). “Can History Be Open Source? Wikipedia and the Future of the Past,” Journal of American History, 93, http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/jah/93.1/pdf/rosenzweig.pdf.

Ruhleder, Karen. (1995). “Reconstructing Artifacts, Reconstructing Work: From Textual Edition to On-Line Databank.” Science, Technology, & Human Values, 20 (1), pp. 39-64.

Schilit, Bill N. and Okan Kolak. (2008). “Exploring a digital library through key ideas.” JCDL ’08: Proceedings of the 8th ACM/IEEE-CS joint conference on Digital libraries, pp. 177-186.

Sennyey, Pongracz, Lyman Ross, and Caroline Mills. (2009). “Exploring the Future of Academic Libraries: A Definitional Approach.” The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 35 (3), pp. 252-259.

Shaw, Ryan, Michael Buckland, and Ray Larson. (2009). “Integrating Tools for Synthesis into Digital Libraries.” Proceedings of JCDL 2009 Workshop: Integrating Digital Library Content with Computational Tools and Services.

Turner, E. G., T. C. Skeat, and J. David Thomas. (1967). “Sir Harold Idris Bell,” The Journal of Egyptian Archaeology, 53, pp. 131-140.