In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

2. Ongoing Challenges for Digital Critical Editions Philippe Régnier As observed in this beginning of the twenty-first century, the reality of “digital critical edition” is still too embryonic and too unstable, even though it is developing , to be considered only in its present state and to be adopted without wondering about its future. It is indeed a strange situation where one has the impression of leaving the familiar and well-established world of printed books for the adventure and the risks of a medium commonly described as immaterial, in perpetual evolution, and without rules. Let us dare state up front that the issue at stake is neither external nor temporary: philology, this old lady born of the marriage of humanism and printing, is from now on definitely confronted with the question of its media mutation. In facing this opportunity for modernization—which stands a good chance of increasingly often imposing itself as a necessity—philology finds itself at a crossroadsofratherdiversechoices,withthemoral obligation,however,whatever the path chosen, to remain loyal to its fundamental values. Briefly said, philology must reassess its strategy to take into account digital technology. It can no longer remain apart if it does not want to be paralyzed or isolated. It can no longer remain a passive user if it does not want to find itself confined in inadequate frameworks. Philology needs to be endowed with a vision of its future. But thinking about prospects of the future, as one knows, is similar to the utopian method invented by Thomas More, which consists of examining, criticizing , and especially interpreting what exists at the moment of writing in order to imagine what could or should exist tomorrow or the day after tomorrow. By definition, thinking prospectively involves taking risks that are justified by the hope of gains superior to those guaranteed by daily routine. Also by definition, it is a cause of dissent. That is why very divergent opinions coexist among phi- lologists, even within the same specialized fields, within the same groups, and often in the same heads. The enthusiasm of some philologists is equaled only by the grimness of others. This is not astounding, considering, as recalled in the preceding chapter, that the theoretical advances of printed philology, its norms and presentation techniques result from two centuries of discussions that were much more strenuous than commonly imagined, without having ever reached a unique and definite model. The contrary would be surprising, one is tempted to say, considering the diversity of schools of thought and practices. Focusing on digital edition, it would seem fit to assess the issues at stake, and, considering the precedent printing effects, to dismiss no hypothesis—neither the strongest ones nor the wildest—in trying to find the most stimulating one, the one that would have digital edition at the heart of a general process of change. Quantitative Change or Qualitative Mutation: Cultural Catastrophe or Progress? A common opinion consists in denying the problem formulated as a question in the header above. Digital technology is considered neutral. The question retained is not the improvement of or change in editing but how to edit more, much more, and more rapidly, for the immense number of readers who now have overdeveloped reading capacities. Let’s take, for example, a thirty-year-old precedent: text processing and computer -aided publishing. These major inventions seem to have corresponded exclusively to increases in productivity and quickly fallen into oblivion and indifference as their use became generalized and their access available to most persons writing and publishing. In the same way, computer-assisted editing and reading tomorrow could result in nothing more than an increase of existing capacities. Has anyone seriously contended that the forms of the printed book would have directly provoked any type of scientific revolution? On the other hand, however, would anyone contest the obvious fact that both inventions have completely reformatted our very way of thinking? And, more deeply still, that they have definitely brought about a new humanity? The passage from print to digital could eventually turn out to be as decisive as the passage from Stone Age to the Bronze Age or the one from manuscript to print. For the time being, current daily experiences with digital texts often involves using websites where the site authors are sparingly identified, if at all, and there is usually no information concerning where the site is located or when it was set up: looking for a quick answer, users arrive through the guidance of...

Share