What a wonderful occasion! So much that I didn’t know, so many kind and tolerant people to talk to.
People are important: the question we pose to the machines, the individuality we bring to the interpretation of the data (even if perhaps individuality could perhaps be supplemented by more maths). The study of Latin poetry is probably the area in classical literature which at the moment gives freest scope for aesthetic interpretation and for close reading; it also seems to be the area where digital studies are most advanced. The union of elements is well expressed by the idea of a selective, interpretative, and artistically written commentary, supplemented by links to massive online stores of intertexts and further data.
Perhaps we need to think further about the models presupposed in the questions we ask. Could we evolve a more reader-based approach to intertextuality, which would supplement approaches more based on authors?
Perhaps we need too to keep our texts embedded in a full context of ancient reading practices, education, archaeology, epigraphy [could we have a marriage with Manfred Clauss’s website?], etc. The evidence of Greek papyri is so important for Latin.
The technologies for relating Greek to Latin are developing. This is an area where digital help would be especially valuable. Likewise help in the exploration of intertextuality for prose. In both areas the difficulties are partly intrinsic, partly technical, partly to do with the divisions of our discipline.
Individuality, cooperation, advance, and open-mindedness: the future looks exciting! But I have drunk rather a lot of herbal tea.