Data Migration and Palaeography

- The Codex Bruchsal

I have recently been composing a very dry essay on the lists and catalogues of interest to Anglo-Saxonists. I have been struck by a couple of factors. Firstly the inadequacy of the printed medium, to reliably consult Ker, possibly the first point of call for anyone interested in a particular manuscript one also has to consult two supplements, one of which is published in the journal Anglo-Saxon England (which is only available online from 2001- present, at least according to Manchester, which has one of the most comprehensive package of electronic subscriptions in the UK), the other is a chapter in a book, which at least appears to have had a fairly large print run. This is because the world of Anglo-Saxon in manuscripts is not as static as one might think, manuscripts change hands and location, are subject to renewed paleaographic investigation, and, intermittently, new leaves crop up in bindings of other books. Much relevant information needs to be consulted in other indexes anyway. As well as Ker’s Catalogue there is a list of texts, with their associated manuscripts, this is also invaluable. So we have two very different indexes, with two very different functions, but both very important. Both should be consulted before anyone goes near a real manuscript.

These texts are crying out for a database. A searchable database, one with two types of record, an MS record, describing palaeographic and codicological features and linking to the texts found in that MS, and a text record which links to the MSS where that text can be found, and also holding other information, ideally a basic bibliography, but at least editions and facsimiles of the text. To see a similar concept in action one should consult PASE (Prosopography of Anglo-Saxon England), such a database would have been inconceivable in the pre-digital age, now I can explore the relations between people and places with great ease. PASE contains information on, and indexes of, people, sources, locations, events, offices (Bishop of Winchester etc), status occupations, relationships and possessions.

This is where I get to my second point, those in the field of manuscript study are somewhat suspicious of technological solutions to many problems. They embrace them, but with reservations. This is largely because they have all been burnt, especially by microfiche, but by all sorts of digital data forms as well. The British Library is the best example of the problem, which, rumour has it, expends a lot of money maintaining the equipment to read floppy disks of several types, CDs laser disks, microfiche, cassettes, of various types, reel-reel etc. All libraries expended a lot of money on microfiche, including microfiche catalogues which are now almost entirely useless. A project to compose an Old English Dictionary(started in ‘73, currently on G) to supersede Bosworth-Toller begun on microfiche, and had to invest considerable effort in digitising that microfiche when it became clear that microfiche was a pretty dead medium. A lot of information is still only available on microfiche, and libraries have to maintain machines, and train staff in their use, so that staff can in turn instruct the occasional keen student. If the effort to maintain equipment, and train staff, fails, then the Library or institution will be left with boxes of useless celluloid. Digitising microfiche can be done, with automatic readers, for $0.15 a page, making a single newspaper a little more expensive to digitise than to buy, and that is just producing images, not OCRing or transcribing the text.

- Microfiche

On the other hand the codex has remained a compatible medium for two millennia. Arguably there was no significant advance in data preservation between the codex and the internet. And putting stuff in stone in pyramids is still the hands down most endurable data preservation method. So one can see why people are skeptical about the long term benefits of technology as a solution to data preservation.

I think the internet is different though, once information is digitised, it should never become inaccessible, because, especially with the advent of the internet, it should be possible to migrate data with limited danger of mutation/corruption. The internet should make this even easier, if server A becomes obsolete, it should be possible to migrate all the information seamlessly, and easily to server B, thus preserving the data, and silently upgrading the medium. Even the software should be easily transferred, especially if everyone uses standard forms. It is possible that in one hundred years my Scrivener files will be unreadable, but if I save a copy in .rtf, it should not be too hard to maintain the information. (Bear in mind that whatever replaces .rtf will HAVE to be compatible with .rtf)

On the Use of Words

misogynist, n. and adj.
A. n. A person who hates, dislikes, or is prejudiced against women.
B. adj. That is a misogynist; characterized by hatred of or prejudice against women; misogynistic.

- Oxford English Dictionary

I have been thinking recently about the application, and misapplication of certain terms. My thinking was triggered by the use of the term “Misandrist” by a Shipmate of Ship of Fools, who was referring to those who advocated the Ordination of Women. It reminded me of the use of the term “Homosexualist” on the very interesting, and informative website Fish Eaters. See this section on veiling (The website is worth exploring, despite the conservative authorship).

This annoys me, and I will try and explore why in this post. One element is the use of jargon or terminology in order to give authority to a position. Here it is used to add a sense of rationality to a position that I believe to be irrational, (more on my beliefs later) and as such it winds me up a little. There is something else distinctive about these two usages, in that they are a subversion of other concepts and terms. Misandrist is a deliberate reversal of misogynist, homosexualist is an attempt to make the advocates of sexual equality the bigots. As devices therefore they both attempt to shape the territory of the debate which they inhabit. Instead of a debate between equals these terms attempt to label the parties in the debate. If I allow you to term me bigot in a debate you do not need to listen to me, if I am able to establish myself as the rational figure of authority, then what I say begins to carry credence. I am not saying this is an intentional tactic, or not always. We tend to believe that we are right and others wrong, we have to believe this. (Simply speaking If I think proposition A is true, I do not, by definition, think it is not-true,) One of the ways we can enforce our own sense of rightness, which is a comforting thing to do, if by labeling opposing opinions as inherently wrong. This saves us the trouble of interrogating ourselves, if you are a bigot, I don’t need to bother listening to you. Of course you are misusing the Bible and quoting out of context, of course you are using dodgy statistical/scientific data.

- Eve astride the Serpent

Of course sometimes the use of a term will be intentional, I suspect the use of the word misandrist is a considered attempt to subvert the same language used against those who, for instance, oppose OoW. Here I am hinting about a problem though. If I do not like the use of misandrist against positions I hold, should I not also oppose the use of the phrase misogynist? During oral presentations of Research Outlines on Tuesday one of my peers described the assignation of women as “meek and mild” as “misogynist”. (To be fair she used this as an example of misogyny, rather than as a description therof) So now I am wondering, is that a good use of the term? Is the concept of misogyny cheapened by application to proto-complimentarist understandings of Gender? Or is it legitimate to say that such concepts of Gender are entirely bankrupt, to a degree that the bigot designation sticks?

I certainly intend to think twice before using these terms, but then I need to try and work out when they are appropriate. I spent some wordage over christmas discussing the misogyny of one reader of John Rylands’ Manuscript 2 : Lydgate’s Fall of Princes. In this case I was using misogyny in fairly technical context, but even then, did I pay less regard to the subtleties of Medieval gender Politics by labeling a position so broadly?

For more on misogyny specifically:
On Misogyny, Misandry and Misanthropy
Wikipedia on Misogyny

Citizenship

I am going to leave the advertised content for a short while, although I do still intend to return to conference soon.

Right now I am excised by the fuss about the so-called citizenship proposals. I should say now that Ekklesia makes some very good points about the theological implications, and criticisms.

My initial reaction was mainly a political one, and one that I would like to think is informed by a little national pride. The theological problems are well put by Ekklesia, it is very true that a Christians first allegiance is not to the nation, but to "Another Country" (Beware - MIDI).

Of course most of the fuss has been about one, tentative, element of the proposals. People have been generally put off by the idea of swearing allegiance to the Queen. Quite rightly, I for one just don't feel like I owe the queen any allegiance, and I am far from being a republican. I also think there is something contradictory about asserting our Britishness by importing Americanisms, well, I hope that is contradictory. If I were to swear allegiance to any thing to represent my Britishness, it would probably be parliament. We haven't had a thousand years of the negotiation of a democratic settlement for it all to be ignored overnight. I might go as far as the King(Queen) in Parliament. I am not entirely sure what the Crown represents, is it the imperium of the monarch? Is it indeed the power of the King in Parliament? Bottom line however, is that I would rather not swear allegiance to anything. No flag, no Constitution, no Queen, King, or Corporation.

Many of the other ideas have some merit, I would like to ignore anything about being a citizen, about citizenship ceremonies etc. If one is an incorporated citizen in a proud nation, one shouldn't need to prance about to prove it. Tax discounts, or reduction in tuition fees, for people who do volunteer and community work couldn't hurt. Millions of man hours must be put into socially valuable but financially unrewarding volunteering every year, the benefits to society, the state, and the economy should be rewarded, if only marginally. I would also love to see an extra bank holiday, perhaps on St George's Day, Shakespeare's birthday, or the anniversary of Shakespeare's death.

What I would really like to see however, is an attempt to make people British with a good immersion in real British History, and Liberal thinking and Philosophy.

The core would have to be a Magna Carta to Holyrood tour-de-force over several years, modeled perhaps on Starkey's Monarchy, which tells the story of the shift of power from King - Parliament. With a good dose of the history of the institutions and the formation of the nation, and an understanding of how our rights arose a better appreciation might be gained. This would have to be accompanied by a basic introduction to some of the classic philosophy of the state.

The loss of classics has had a severe deleterious effect on education generally, someone who studied classics for a good length of time should understand not only the language, but also English grammar, and the basics of rhetoric. More importantly it is in Latin and Greek that some of the most important ideas about the state were first formed, a grounding in these is sorely lacking. To build on the classics an understanding of John Stuart Mill and Rousseau should be enforced. Neither is particularly difficult, but if more people understood Mill, the world would surely be a better place.