Author:

Abstract:

Textual scholars have tended to consider themselves neutral. Accordingly, many have written from this perspective that is mostly limited to that of White Anglophone heteronormative males. Peter Shillingsburg, in the preface to Textuality and Knowledge, writes: “The relation between documents as evidence and criticism as argument is without gender, nationality, time, or place.” This implies that textual critical research and, more specifically, the creation of editions bypasses social markers and overcomes structural constructs. However, neutrality, in this context, is a fallacy. Editing is done by humans and humans have particular backgrounds and experiences that affect their interests, their understanding, and their perspectives. Moreover, technology is not neutral either, precisely because it is built by humans. In this way, although it is expected that digital editions will reach more people than ever before, we must also understand that the technologies make possible the delivery of digital editions are not free and accessible to everyone in the same manner. Using the Canterbury Tales as an example, I show that the politics of race, gender, and class, have a noticeable effect in our interpretation of texts and the way that we present those texts in digital editions.