Responding to Criticisms of Phylogenetic Methods in Stemmatology

Howe, Christopher J.; Connolly, Ruth; Windram, Heather F.

doi:10.1353/sel.2012.0008

Cited by 15 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…6 This is true both of hand-made and computer-assisted stemmata since, no matter how a stemma is built, there are assumptions that underlie any approach. 7 For more details on the problem of bifurcation, see Phillips-Rodriguez et al (2010) and for answers to general criticisms of the use of phylogenetics in stemmatology, see Howe et al (2012). 8 Another possible solution would be to use methods that can handle multifurcating trees.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The genealogy of texts: Manuscript traditions and textual traditions

Bordalejo

2015

Digital Scholarship Humanities

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

For some time, scholars have been using computer-assisted methods to produce graphic representations of the relationships between witnesses within a textual tradition. 1 The use of methods originally developed by evolutionary biologists has been called into question on account of the perceived lack of identity between two different disciplines. This view arises from a misunderstanding about how the methods work in relation to texts and how the resulting stemmata should be interpreted. This article refines textual critical terminology, particularly the distinction between textual traditions and manuscript traditions, in the context of the use of computer-assisted stemmatological methods to further our understanding of how these fit within the wider theoretical framework of textual criticism and scholarly editing, and makes explicit the way in which stemmata produced by using evolutionary biology software should be read.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The genealogy of texts: Manuscript traditions and textual traditions

Bordalejo

2015

Digital Scholarship Humanities

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The ML tree is usually bifurcating, generating many internodes and an extra-corporal root. Although in our context, it challenges performance of automatic reconstruction, bifurcations are not a circumstance necessarily paralleling philology closely, (Howe et al, 2012).…”

Section: Bio-informatic Reconstructionmentioning

confidence: 86%

Lachmannian Archetype Reconstruction for Ancient Manuscript Corpora

Hoenen

2015

Proceedings of the 2015 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Langua

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Two goals are targeted by computer philology for ancient manuscript corpora: firstly, making an edition, that is roughly speaking one text version representing the whole corpus, which contains variety induced through copy errors and other processes and secondly, producing a stemma. A stemma is a graphbased visualization of the copy history with manuscripts as nodes and copy events as edges. Its root, the so-called archetype, is the supposed original text or urtext from which all subsequent copies are made. Our main contribution is to present one of the first computational approaches to automatic archetype reconstruction and to introduce the first textbased evaluation for automatically produced archetypes. We compare a philologically generated archetype with one generated by bioinformatic software.

show abstract

“…I mentioned earlier how geology and paleontology inspired Lachmann, and how evolutionism influenced the development of stemmatic theory. Some say it was the other way round, that biology took stemmatics from Lachmann (Howe et al, 2001;Bod, 2016;Howe, Connolly and Windram, 2012). Whichever it was, evolutionism contributed to consolidating the authority of Lachmann's proposal, even if philologists really were the ones who encouraged naturalists to draw stemmata.…”

Section: Present-day Methodological Debates Over Textual Criticismmentioning

confidence: 99%

Between Science, Art, and Forgery: Latin Textual Criticism as a Case Example

Axer¹

2020

Truth and Falsehood in Science and the Arts

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The methodology and practice of Latin text editing is presented in the paper as an example of a humanities scholar's work that combines scientific effort with artistic activity, including forgery of works by old masters. Part one outlines the methodological situation in textual criticism in the 1960s and 1970s, when the author was a university student and novice researcher. Next, the author considers what caused changes in editing methodology in subsequent decades and, finally, he comments on present-day debates surrounding the role of the academic editor, with a special focus on the interdisciplinary aspects of this issue.

show abstract

Responding to Criticisms of Phylogenetic Methods in Stemmatology

Cited by 15 publications

References 19 publications

The genealogy of texts: Manuscript traditions and textual traditions

The genealogy of texts: Manuscript traditions and textual traditions

Lachmannian Archetype Reconstruction for Ancient Manuscript Corpora

Between Science, Art, and Forgery: Latin Textual Criticism as a Case Example

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About