The "close-up" – digital facsimiles in academic research and teaching

In his article “Text in the Electronic Age”, Sperberg-McQueen argues that any reading of a text is a theory on account of the interpretative choices made, either regarding content (letter forms, word breaks, punctuation) or formatting (spacing, indentation, paragraph length, margins). Thus, the encoding of texts for the electronic publication of linguistic artifacts is a kind of theorizing. Theorizing is an apt description for the use of digital facsimiles in academic research and teaching. When students examine primary sources – either via online editions of texts or by scrolling through digitized manuscripts – they are engaging in theoretical research. In contrast to the passive experience of the traditional lecture-and-exam model of learning, learning through primary research is an active process in which the learner, to some degree, decides the subject of investigation, the methodology for structuring that investigation and how best to translate their results into knowledge. Learning how to make critical decisions is higher-order thinking and learning that skill is the most valuable take-away from any such experience, even more important than the discovery of new knowledge through personal interpretation, which may or may not be flawed. Sperberg-McQueen is only being kind when he says everyone’s interpretations are valuable.

Another way of describing textual encoding is as abstraction. Sperberg-McQueen observes that electronic texts do not exist as physical or concrete objects, but are conceptual abstractions, representations. In his view, representations are partial, idiosyncratic and deceptive, like fun-house mirrors that obscure rather than reveal in a straightforward fashion. Abstraction is very much what takes place in primary research using digital facsimiles. One can consider a primary source in the abstract, independent of physical or historical contexts. By zooming in, one can examine an object's individual parts in isolation, in minute detail, in different lights. It is this ability to view things at close-range that is the benefit of the digital facsimiles. However, I have made use of a variety of facsimiles in research, ranging from traditional photographs and microfilm to digital images and digital copies of manuscripts on DVD and I know that being able to zoom in is both a boon and a curse. 

Among the objects I have researched was a tenth-century silver book cover engraved with an inscription commemorating its female donor. The Annunciation to Mary was depicted on the cover. After having consulted the object in a library in Rome, I ordered a photograph of it, which was taken in raking light so that the details stood out starkly. In the photograph, Mary's abdomen appeared emphasized, sparking the notion that perhaps the detail was significant from both a theological perspective and in the context of female patronage. In a conference paper, I noted my observation, but was criticized by a male audience-member for being too subjective. In my subsequent write-up of the research, I refrained from including the observation but I still feel strongly that my observation was the 'correct reading'. However, I cannot confirm my observation until I consult the original again. What does this example teach us? That in the end, digital copies just can't replace the original. 

Best, Laura