Enriching the LLT: Background Information

On 22 May, the beta version of the Library of Latin Texts received its third update. It now covers Latin literature from the third century BC up to the fourteenth century AD.

In the previous blogpost, we explained why we introduced the concept of “collections” to the structure of the database. In this blog post, we will focus on the background information provided for each person, work, and collection.

While persons and works may be familiar to researchers dedicated to the specific field they belong to, researchers from a different field might not be familiar with them and might need more context. Until now, only works had a few paragraphs providing background information. The new version of the LLT allows us to present information where it is most relevant: on the record of the author, the collection, or the work.

Persons

For persons, the LLT provides:

1. A date statement, based on modern research (i.e. the person’s life dates where possible, otherwise an approximate date);
2. A biographical sketch situates each person within their historical and geographical context. While not fully encyclopaedic, the biography should offer enough detail to understand the essence of the individual’s life and work. In the previous version of the LLT, this information was often included in the background information of a work.
3. A series of external links as starting points for additional research. These links include relevant records in other BREPOLiS databases (e.g. Clavis Clavium or L’Année philologique) and authority files (e.g. Wikidata or the Library of Congress). For persons described in domain-specific research projects, we try to include links to those as well (e.g. the Dictionary of Irish Biography for Irish authors). Please contact the CTLO if you want to link your research project to the LLT as well.

Works

When it comes to works, we provide the following information:

1. The person(s) related to the work (as author, translation, addressee, etc.);
2. The century when the work was composed (where necessary with a dubium or terminus ante/post quem qualification);
3. The edition used as the basis for the text as included in the LLT;
4. Key reference work numbers referring to authoritative sources such as the Clavis Patrum Latinorum or the index of the Thesaurus Linguae Latinae (cf. the upcoming blog post on reference works);
5. A description of the work, outlining its contents and transmission and providing notes on the specific treatment within the LLT (e.g. corrections or remarks on variants);
6. An approximate classification of the text within an established taxonomy, focussing on its genre, topic, and area of origin (cf. the upcoming blog post on taxonomy).

It should be noted that the description of a work aims to highlight details about its transmission or edition that might otherwise escape the user’s attention. In some cases, we will mention the reasons for selecting a particular edition or we will mention errata in the edition that came up during processing or that were pointed out to us by the editors or by database users.

Collections

As explained in the blog post on “Collections”, we have introduced this new level to encompass works that are expected to be presented together despite differences in authorship or dating (e.g. letter collections or translations with an introduction by their translator).

While collections inevitably do not contain all the detailed information that can be provided for a work, the LLT offers the following information on collection records:

1. The person(s) related to the various works within the collection;
2. Reference work numbers that identify the collection as a whole (e.g. CPL 262 for the correspondence of Saint Augustine);
3. A description of the collection, explaining its contents and the reasons for its treatment as a collection;
4. The taxonomy entries assigned to the various works within the collection.

Future developments

Because of the large number of texts currently in the LLT, providing each entry with an appropriate description is a huge undertaking and, therefore, an ongoing effort. With each coming update, more entries will be contextualized.

Enriching the LLT: Collections

On 29 April, the beta version of the Library of Latin Texts received its second update. It now covers Latin literature from the third century BC up to the eleventh century AD.

In the previous blogpost, we explained why we moved from “authors” to the more flexible concept of “related persons”. In this blog post, we will focus on the organization of related works into collections and how this can be beneficial for our users.

What Is a Collection?

A collection is a group of works that clearly belong together, because:

1. They have a common literary genesis. This is the case, for example, for prologues or epilogues that were composed by other authors alongside the work they introduce or complement;
2. They have historically grown to be considered as a single work. A prime example of this are the Bible books, that can be seen either as individual works or as a whole;
3. They have a strong tradition of being edited as a collection, despite the fact that their authorship or date may vary. This is often the case for collections of letters or sermons.

Collections can have a multi-level hierarchy, that can help make large corpora more manageable for researchers. Moreover, works have a fixed order within a collection, which makes it easier for users to find texts in their expected order.

Why Introduce Collections?

Let us look at an example. Although researchers would expect to find a single entry for Cicero’s Epistulae ad Brutum, this was not the case in the previous version of the LLT. Given that the database only allowed for a single author to be assigned to a work, and that metadata structures were limited, one needed to search for:

1. M. Tullius Cicero – Epistulae ad Marcum Iunium Brutum;
2. M. Iunius Brutus – Epistulae ad Ciceronem seruatae cum Ciceronis Epistulis ad Brutum;
3. M. Iunius Brutus (dubium) – Epistulae ad Ciceronem et Atticum seruatae cum Ciceronis Epistulis ad Brutum.

Thanks to collections, users can now find the Epistulae ad Brutum in their expected form and order. Specific information, such as authorship, related persons, date information or reference work numbers, has been assigned to each particular epistula.

When Do We Not Create a Collection?

Strictly thematic or genre-related grouping of texts is supported by the ‘Studies and Reference Works’ section of the database and is generally not considered to be a reason for creating a collection within the Library of Latin Texts.

When multiple versions of the same text are included in the database, e.g. multiple translations of the same original work or versions transmitted in different manuscripts, they are considered as different works. Again, these will not be grouped as a collection.

Examples

(1) Common Literary Genesis: Eriugena’s Translation of the Ambigua ad Iohannem and Eriugena’s Dedicatory Letter

(2) Works of Different Origins That Have Historically Been Considered as One: The Old Testament

(3) Common Editorial Tradition: (a) The Exchange of Letters Between Ildefonsus and Quiricus

(3) Common Editorial Tradition: (b) Sermo 204D Within the Corpus of Augustine’s Sermones ad populum

A Continuously Evolving Dataset

We have started to implement the concept of collections with the most prominent corpora (e.g. the Sermones ad populum of Saint Augustine or the Registrum Lateranense of Gregory the Great). With each update, we will extend this effort to other dossiers, whether by splitting a collection presented as a single work into its components or by bringing together parts of a collection that were previously spread over the database.