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

正如引用在现代学术生活中起着核心作用一样，早期的现代知识分子生活在一个以文本为主导的文化中，他们在自己的著作中引用了大量的资料。更普遍的是，现代早期的人们经常引用圣经资料，并通过圣经资料构建自己的道德和宗教自我，而受过大学教育的精英们则熟悉数百条来自古典资料的引文。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（古典、圣经和教父）的态度的制约。在评注传统中，运用一系列的训诂技巧来把握经典文本的准确性和意义，为大学学生指明了一种实用的学习形式。印刷版的可用性意味着对当代、古典或圣经来源的引用都被固定在文本中，正如爱森斯坦所说，允许一个“两本书之间强烈交叉引用的新时代”。在许多领域，脱离传统，以现代作家的身份出现的可能性，自由地批评而不仅仅是解释古代资料，与印刷文化的发展是同步的。现代作者引入了一套新的引用实践，因为引用古代文本可能表明拒绝而不是诉诸权威。这反过来又创造了一个新的论坛来确定现代作者的可信度、准确性和原创性，从而确定他们的权威。在过去的二十年里，人们对文艺复兴和早期现代形式的作者身份的历史产生了浓厚的兴趣，特别是通过参考过去的形式与权威有关；如魏曼对近代早期话语权威的研究；安·莫斯论普通电子书与文艺复兴时期的思想结构明尼斯论作者身份与考证r.j.康纳斯论引文系统的修辞学S.A . Barney关于文本注释的文集；德里达，科斯格罗夫和格拉夫顿的脚注；里奇蒙-加扎论悲剧中的经典参照马丁代尔和泰勒谈莎士比亚对经典的运用；克拉克和利奇在音乐中的经典参考。通过自动搜索引用并建立早期现代作者引用多个源文本的可视化功能，我们假设“参考模式”将在不同学科中出现，这将使人文学科研究人员能够更准确地建立这些研究领域相互联系和相互依赖于经典和圣经源的集群和网络的程度。在整个时期追踪引文的能力将构成理解不同学科（如政治、自然哲学、神学、文学）引文实践之间重要差异的重大突破；通过引用实践的权威传递；以及新经典的诞生。根据设想，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，并查看引用了哪些源文本；谁还引用过同一篇文章（部分或全部）？引文模式与相似文本的关系；如果存在“虫洞”（即连接起来创建更大的自我参考网络的模式）。该项目将有三个平行的研究方向：(i)历史：关于引文历史和引文实践的基础研究；技术性：用XML-TEI标记文本；基于人文用户需求的工具协同设计创建可视化显示结果；（iii）评价：4个阶段的迭代过程(a)引文识别/检索，(b)引文分类，(c)语境化，(d)假设构建，(e)引文解释，这将丰富我们对“引文文化”的理解。

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'.