How’s that for a boring title?<\/p>\n
As a continuation of my experiment with publishing original scholarship on this site, I have just uploaded an eight-page PDF containing two conjectures on the text of Seneca’s Agamemnon<\/i>, titled as above (link<\/a>). (I thought of calling it ‘Ino the Answer’, but that only applies to the first half.) Feedback on the substance or expression of any of these notes, listed in the right-hand column, may be left as blog comments. Your first will be moderated, but once you’ve had one approved, others will be approved automatically, unless you behave so badly that I am forced to blacklist you. I don’t expect that to happen often. My reasons for and against publishing ‘Microscholarship’ in this way will be published soon – on this site, of course. So far I’ve thought of 8 pros and 3 cons.<\/p>\n Here’s a question: should I format all the papers for HTML as well as PDF? Those with numerous footnotes take a lot of time to convert: is it worth it, from the reader’s point of view? So far, that’s the two that contain emendations, this and Curculio<\/i> 2, on Cymbeline<\/i>, but that may be coincidental. Textual criticism often lends itself to succinctness.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" How’s that for a boring title? As a continuation of my experiment with publishing original scholarship on this site, I have just uploaded an eight-page PDF containing two conjectures on the text of Seneca’s Agamemnon, titled as above (link). (I … Continue reading