Early Modern Data

Information collected and arranged for later presentation or study.

Must begin by defining data somewhat. The best I could come up with. Not only something we care about today, but a subject of considerable early modern interest. Euclid and Euclidis Data (1625)–English translations of Elements as far back as 1570.

Recent computational affordances have made working with data in early modern studies more practical, which has given rise to debate about what methods should be adopted, when, and for what purposes. Concurrent with the rise of data analytics as a field (which I myself teach) and a broader cultural awareness of data science, statistical modeling, and even “AI” or machine learning. As we ask “Can these fields be reconciled?” the work is already happening, undertaken by many scholars, some of them in this room. How does this work take shape and for what is it useful? What are the terms under which “Early Modern Data” exists today and how might it look 5, 10, 20 years from now?

Some guiding questions

Is data always anachronistic? Is it a modern layer we add to our study of the past or something more integrated?
Is data—either historically or today—primarily about discovering new or hidden information?
Does data-driven work have any claim to objectivity? How is data “taken” (Drucker) or “situtated” (Lavin)?
How do the forms and formats of our data (tables, XML, bag of words, NLP tags, metadata) alter the field of possibility for EM scholarship?

When there are gaps and problems in our data, who or what is being excluded?
What are the differences between data that adds additional context and turning our objects of study (e.g. texts) themselves into data?
Is data better suited to the claims made in book history than in other parts of the discipline?
How can information, extracted into a table or another form, help us to access the things we most want to study: a theme, a presence, a life, a mind? Does data get in the way?

(Aboluwade 3)

(Hornback 2)

(Ormsby 3)

(Wayne 2)