Patterns of Reference and Networks of Authority: Classical and Biblical Citations and the Production of a new Canon in Early Modern Culture 1500-1800

参考模式和权威网络：古典和圣经的引用以及现代早期文化中新经典的产生 1500-1800

• 批准号: AH/F019564/1
• 负责人: John Darlington
• 金额: $ 19.49万
• 依托单位: Imperial College London
• 依托单位国家: 英国
• 项目类别: Research Grant
• 财政年份: 2008
• 资助国家: 英国
• 起止时间: 2008 至 无数据
• 项目状态: 已结题
• 来源: https://gtr.ukri.org/projects?ref=AH%2FF019564%2F1
• 关键词: Patterns; Reference; Networks; Authority; Classical

Just as citation plays a central role in modern academic life, so early modern intellectuals lived in a predominantly text-based culture and cited numerous sources in their writings. More generally, people in the early modern period routinely cited and constructed their own moral and religious selves by means of biblical sources, while university-educated elites were familiar with hundreds of quotations from classical sources. The working and writing lives of medieval and early modern scholars was conditioned by their attitudes to ancient authorities: classical, biblical, and patristic. The commentary tradition, in which a series of exegetical techniques were deployed for grasping the accuracy and meaning of canonical texts, marked out a practical form of study for students in universities. The availability of printed editions meant that citations to both contemporary, classical or scriptural sources became fixed within texts, permitting, as Eisenstein puts it, a new 'era of intense cross-referencing between one book and another'. In many spheres, the possibility of breaking away from tradition and presenting oneself as a modern author, free to criticize rather than merely to interpret ancient sources, was contemporaneous with developments in print culture. Modern authors introduced a new set of citation practices, since references to ancient texts could signal a rejection rather than an appeal to authority. This in turn created a new forum for determining the credibility, accuracy and originality of modern authors, and hence their authority.In the last two decades there has been substantial interest in the history of Renaissance and Early Modern forms of authorship, especially relating to authority through forms of reference to the past; e.g. R. Weimann on the authority of discourse in the early modern period; Ann Moss on commonplace-books and the structure of Renaissance thought; A. J. Minnis on authorship and textual criticism; R.J Connors on the rhetoric of citation systems; S.A Barney's collection of essays on textual annotation; Derrida, Cosgrove and Grafton on footnoting; Richmond-Garza on classical references in tragedy; Martindale and Taylor on Shakespeare's use of the classics; Clark and Leach on classical references in music.By having the capacity to automatically search for citations and build up a visualization of Early Modern authors citing multiple source texts, we assume that 'patterns of reference' will emerge across different disciplines that will enable humanities researchers to establish more precisely the extent to which these areas of study are interconnected and mutually dependent on clusters and networks of classical and biblical sources. The ability to track citations across an entire period would constitute a major breakthrough in understanding important differences between citation practices in varying subjects (i.e. politics, natural philosophy, theology, literature); the transmission of authority through citation practices; and the production of a new canon. It is envisaged that any researcher armed with a digitized text could load it into our system and see which source texts are cited; who else has cited the same text (in part or whole); how a citation pattern relates to similar texts; and if there are 'worm-holes' (i.e. patterns that join up to create larger networks of reference that are self-referring).The Project will have three parallel strands of research: (i) Historical: basic research on the history of citation and citation practices; (ii) Technical: tagging texts in XML-TEI; collaborative designing of tools based on humanities user needs; creating visualization for display of results; (iii) Evaluative: 4 stage iterative process of (a) identification/retrieval of citation, (b) classification of citations into types, (c) contextualization, (d) hypothesis building, and (e) interpretation of citations, that will enrich our understandingh of the 'culture of citations'.

正如引文在现代学术生活中发挥着核心作用一样，早期现代知识分子生活在以文本为基础的文化中，在他们的著作中引用了大量的来源。更广泛地说，早期现代人经常引用和构建自己的道德和宗教自我，通过圣经来源，而受过大学教育的精英们熟悉数百条经典来源的引语。中世纪和早期现代学者的工作和写作生活受到他们对古代权威的态度的制约：古典的、圣经的和教父的。评点传统运用了一系列训释技巧，以把握典籍的准确性和意义，为大学生开辟了一种实用的学习形式。印刷版的出现意味着对当代、古典或圣经来源的引用在文本中变得固定下来，正如艾森斯坦所说，这允许一个新的“一本书和另一本书之间强烈相互参考的时代”。在许多领域，打破传统，以现代作家的身份展示自己，自由批评而不仅仅是解释古代来源的可能性，与印刷文化的发展是同时的。现代作家引入了一套新的引用做法，因为引用古代文本可能是拒绝的信号，而不是对权威的呼吁。在过去的二十年里，人们对文艺复兴时期和早期现代形式的著作权的历史产生了极大的兴趣，特别是通过引用过去的形式与权威有关；例如，R·魏曼关于早期现代时期的话语权威；安·莫斯关于平凡的书籍和文艺复兴时期的思想结构；A·J·明尼斯关于作者和文本批评；R·J·康纳斯关于引文系统的修辞；S.A·巴尼关于文本注释的论文集；德里达、科斯格罗夫和格拉夫顿脚注；里士满-加尔扎关于悲剧中的经典引用；马丁代尔和泰勒关于莎士比亚对经典的使用；克拉克和利奇关于音乐中的经典引用。通过拥有自动搜索引文并建立早期现代作家引用多个来源文本的可视化的能力，我们假设参考模式将出现在不同的学科中，这将使人文科学研究人员能够更准确地确定这些研究领域在多大程度上相互联系和相互依赖古典和圣经来源的集群和网络。跟踪整个时期的引文的能力将是在理解不同学科(即政治、自然哲学、神学、文学)的引文实践之间的重要差异；通过引文实践传递权威；以及制作新的经典方面的重大突破。预计任何拥有数字化文本的研究人员都可以将其加载到我们的系统中，并查看哪些源文本被引用；还有谁引用了相同的文本(部分或全部)；引文模式如何与相似的文本相关；以及是否存在“虫洞”(即组合在一起形成更大的自我引用的参考网络的模式)。该项目将有三个平行的研究方向：(I)历史：引文和引文实践的历史基础研究；(Ii)技术：在XML-TEI中标记文本；根据人文用户的需要合作设计工具；(3)评估：(A)识别/检索引文，(B)引文类型分类，(C)上下文，(D)假设建立，(E)引文解释的4个阶段的迭代过程，这将丰富我们对‘引文文化’的理解。