“We are interested in documentary evidence because it encodes, however cryptically at times, the evidence of the agents who were involved in making and transmitting the document.”

I can appreciate your inclusion of “the emotional side,” especially since (somehow) that seems to be the part that has gotten more-or-less left behind as a result of our blogging about the project somewhat instructionally. I wonder how much of our joy of being able to see the actual manuscripts (even if they are just digital images) stems from our desire to know and see the genius mind *at work*. Speaking for myself here, oftentimes the great works, though easily written about, seem to have a blockade making them inexplicably inaccessible–and I suspect that this is the result of something not altogether unlike idol worship: we see something great and we subconsciously (?) place it on a pedestal that then renders the text as an artifact in a vacuum.

Being able to see the markings, additions, and deletions, then, is a way of seeing the composition–the process–in addition to the composition–the product. And *that*, I think, is the exigency and purpose of projects like these at all–to include the mysterious process of a piece in the archive alongside its polished final form. It’s a matter of human curiosity, really–and we’d be remiss if we failed to highlight that aspect of our work.