[Humanist] 27.970 why not digitized?

Humanist Discussion Group willard.mccarty at mccarty.org.uk
Tue Apr 15 07:35:10 CEST 2014


                 Humanist Discussion Group, Vol. 27, No. 970.
            Department of Digital Humanities, King's College London
                       www.digitalhumanities.org/humanist
                Submit to: humanist at lists.digitalhumanities.org



        Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2014 22:14:49 -0700 (PDT)
        From: Bob Blair <bblair48 at yahoo.com>
        Subject: Walker's "Sufferings of the Clergy"
        In-Reply-To: <20140414052543.D29C862D4 at digitalhumanities.org>

I've been frustrated for a couple of years by a lack of access to Clement Walker's "Sufferings of the Clergy of the Church of England".  Whittaker's abridgement is readily available online, but the full volumes stubbornly remain 70 miles from me in a university library open only until 1700 local time.

Why do you suppose this is?  Certainly Walker is among the volumes digitized by Google and Microsoft.  There is no doubt that they are an important primary source of information about persons central to the history of the Civil Wars and the Commonwealth.  Why do they remain unpublished digitally?

Bob Blair   
--------------------------------------------
On Sun, 4/13/14, Humanist Discussion Group <willard.mccarty at mccarty.org.uk> wrote:

 Subject: [Humanist] 27.967 humanities
 To: humanist at lists.digitalhumanities.org
 Date: Sunday, April 13, 2014, 10:25 PM
 
          
        Humanist Discussion Group,
 Vol. 27, No. 967.
             Department of
 Digital Humanities, King's College London
                
    
    www.digitalhumanities.org/humanist
                
 Submit to: humanist at lists.digitalhumanities.org
 
 
 
         Date: Sun, 13 Apr 2014 10:11:31
 -0500
         From: "Robert A. Amsler" <amsler at cs.utexas.edu>
         Subject: Re:  27.966
 humanities
         In-Reply-To: <20140413075352.C11076363 at digitalhumanities.org>
 
 There is always a choice between working on things that are
 seen as
 "useful" vs. "interesting". In the sciences it's seen as the
 difference
 between "applied" and "basic" research. It obviously affects
 the
 humanities as well.
 
 What is most interesting (oops, I revealed the group I'm
 from) is that it
 isn't clear which category actually yields the most
 significant advances
 since the unexpected always happens no matter what path one
 pursues.
 
 The pursuit of 'useful' results can be a dead end. The
 pursuit of
 'interesting' work can result in significant breakthroughs.
 
 My judgment would be that a society should invest in funding
 both kinds of
 work and when the society's arguments for securing funds
 turn too far
 toward only one of these goals there is the danger that the
 'most' useful
 or 'most' interesting' goal might not be the one that is
 going to lead to
 the most significant impact on society.
 
 
 
 _______________________________________________
 List posts to: humanist at lists.digitalhumanities.org
 List info and archives at at: http://digitalhumanities.org/humanist
 Listmember interface at: http://digitalhumanities.org/humanist/Restricted/listmember_interface.php
 Subscribe at: http://www.digitalhumanities.org/humanist/membership_form.php






More information about the Humanist mailing list