First and foremost, an editor will have to decide whether she wants to engage in documentary editing or critical editing. In the former, the editor will have to decide whether she wants to use a diplomatic reprint, which preserves only the text such as the wording, spelling, punctuation, etc. An editor might also want to decide whether she wants to present the text in facsimile, including photo facsimile or make use of genetic or synoptic transcription. Lastly, also available for documentary transcription is literal transcription on facing pages and transcriptions of various states in parallel columns, as well as presenting documentary editions electronically on disks or over the Internet. With critical editing, an editor will have to decide which reading she wants to incorporate and whether to include editorial emendations that establish readings not found in any document. Specifically, an editor will have to determine which readings are authorial and contemporary with the author. Another thing to consider is whether or not the author’s intentions have changed over time. Also, has an author’s revision been made under duress, and thus is it unfaithful to an author’s intent, is a question to be determined.

            These choices shape future knowledge in a field in several ways. One way is that with documentary editing, we may simply make clear something that was unclear for many years. Also, if an author’s intent is determined during the critical editing process, we are stating what the author meant when she wrote the work, which may then have an effect on the way we view works that come afterwards, both from the author and by others in a similar field. This can be illuminating when viewed in the context of the author’s other works, but the risk seems to be that we imply meaning to the work with that was not intended.