One of the great advantages the digital medium has to offer the feld of scholarly editing is that it makes its products much easier to distribute. No longer bound to a shelf, the Digital Scholarly Edition (DSE) 1 has the potential to reach a much wider audience than a printed edition could. To a certain extent, however, the nature of the materials textual scholars are working with dictates the perimeters within which this dissemination can take place. When working with modern manuscripts, for instance, copyright restrictions may limit the extent to which a project can distribute its resources. In an academic climate where open access is not only becoming a standard, but in some cases even a requirement for receiving funding, 2 such limitations may be perceived as problematic. In this paper however, we argue that even within the boundaries of copyright restrictions there can still be room to produce and distribute the results of textual scholarship. To frame this discussion, we will start by offering an example of the unfavourable reception of copyright restrictions on DSEs by referring to Peter Robinson's recent campaign against the academic use of the Creative Commons license with non-commercial restrictions, recommending its more open Share Alike license instead. CC BY-NC versus CC BY-SABoth at the 'Social, Digital, Scholarly Editing' (SDSE) conference in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, and at the subsequent ADHO 'Digital Humanities 2013' conference in Lincoln, Nebraska, Peter Robinson expressed thought-provoking claims about the future of the Digital Scholarly Edition. More specifcally, he proposed the following list of fve 'Desiderata for Digital Editions' as the frst part of his presentation at the ADHO conference:1. The text of both the document and of the work should be encoded; 2. All editorial acts should be attributed; 3. All materials should, by default, be available by a Creative Commons share-alike license; 4. All materials should be available independent of any one interface; 5. All materials should be held in a sustainable long-term storage system, such as an institutional repository (2013) 3Commendable though this ambitious program may be, scholarly editors who work with modern manuscripts for which today's copyright and intellectual property laws are still considerable issues may feel the need to nuance Robinson's third desideratum.In essence, this desideratum was a criticism of the 'Creative Commons Non-Commercial Use Only' (CC BY-NC) license as a new standard for scholarly projects (Creative Commons, 2013). Intuitively, the CC BY-NC license makes a lot of sense: why would you allow someone else to earn money for work you did? However, as Robinson argued, this license is still too restrictive for scholarly endeavours because the 'non-commercial' clause is so vague that it will discourage too many people from actually using the project's data, even if they intend to use it in a non-proft context. 4 Instead, Robinson suggested using the CC BY-SA license (also called: 'Share-Alike' or 'copyleft'), whic...

When the English Molloy was published in 1955, jointly by Olympia (Paris) and Grove (New York), a long and difficult translation process had ended, on which Beckett worked both alone and together with Merlin and Patrick Bowles. This article is the first attempt to approach this somewhat neglected topic by way of manuscripts, notebooks, letters and other related materials, in order to establish a basic chronology of the English Molloy. In so doing, our purpose is to shed more light on a relatively obscure period in Beckett's literary career and examine critically the role of each party involved. Samuel Beckett culled his trilogy of novels for striking images and phrases throughout his later career, but during the 1950s he revisited Molloy, Malone meurt and L'Innommable in a more direct sense, when various parties requested English versions of his new work. What Beckett called "the losing battle" of translating the trilogy (Knowlson, 438) was fought in the period between 1950 and 1958. This article discusses Molloy because it forced Beckett to devise a long-term strategy to deal with the "hopeless thankless chore" of translation (Harmon, 355), while also leaving sufficient room for new creative endeavours. His decision from Malone Dies onwards to self-translate most of his work was largely the result of a troublesome collaboration on Molloy with Patrick Bowles, a young South African writer. Until recently, little was known about this joining of forces. Bowles's article in the P.N. Review (1994) and James Knowlson's impressive authorized biography (1996) have outlined the basic facts, but the second volume of Samuel Beckett's letters (2011) and Richard Seaver's memoirs (2012), as well as information available in archives, offer new information that calls for a critical reassessment of both the text and the process through which it came about. The present article offers a first step in that direction, by approaching the English Molloy from the perspective of "letters, notebooks, manuscripts and the like," also known as Beckett's "grey canon" (Gontarski, 143). Our purpose is to shed more light on a relatively obscure period in Beckett's literary career and to chart the textual history of Molloy in English. To this purpose, an overview of the translation's preserved draft stages seems in order: DATE TYPE NAME SOURCE / LOCATION A Oct. 1950 Prepublication "Two Fragments"

Building on a longstanding terminological discussion in the field of textual scholarship, this essay explores the archival and editorial potential of the digital scholarly edition. Following Van Hulle and Eggert, the author argues that in the digital medium these traditionally distinct activities now find the space they need to complement and reinforce one another. By critically examining some of the early and more recent theorists and adaptors of this relatively new medium, the essay aims to shed a clearer light on some of its strengths and pitfalls. To conclude, the essay takes the discussion further by offering a broader reflection on the difficulties of providing a 'definitive' archival base transcription of especially handwritten materials, questioning if this should be something to aspire to for the edition in the first place. Keywords Digital scholarly editing. Textual criticism. Archives. Editions For the scholarly edition, the move to the digital medium seems to have initiated something of an identity crisis. More than 30 years after the Text Encoding Initiative was established-a milestone in the development of digital text editing-the digital scholarly edition is still regularly being defined and redefined by the scholarly editing community. What is a digital scholarly edition? How is it different from a printed edition? Is it better? What are the things we can do now (or do better) that we could not do (as well) before? This is, of course, a healthy critical reflex that can be applauded in any scholarly discipline. And with considerably less time to adjust to the new medium than its print predecessor, it is only natural that we do not have all the answers yet. Acknowledging that this evolution-if not exactly a 'revolution' (Robinson 2016)-is still ongoing and that 'the possibilities of digital technologies are in constant flux,' Advances in Digital Scholarly Editing-a collection of extended abstracts of the DiXiT conferences in The Hague, Cologne, and Antwerp-avoids the difficulty of trying to define what is essentially still under development by giving the floor to 'a broad selection of the community of scholars' that is shaping it instead (Boot et al. 2017: 15).

In this paper we explore layered conceptions of access and accessibility as they relate to the theory and praxis of digital scholarly editing. To do this, we designed and disseminated a qualitative survey on five key themes: dissemination; Open Access and licensing; access to code; web accessibility; and diversity. Throughout the article we engage in cultural criticism of the discipline by sharing results from the survey, identifying how the community talks about and performs access, and pinpointing where improvements in praxis could be made. In the final section of this paper we reflect on different ways to utilize the survey results when critically designing and disseminating digital scholarly editions, propose a call to action, and identify avenues of future research.

No abstract