The End of Philology? Human and Artificial Intelligence

This chapter discusses how artificial intelligence impacts how classical philologists see the goals of their discipline and their own activities. The first section discusses the possibility, notably discussed by Nietzsche, that classical philology will at some point end. This is in turn linked to the idea that it is possible to produce definitive editions of classical texts. The debate between Pasquali and Romagnoli, in the years 1917-1920, highlighted the need to focus philological activities on texts that were not central to the canon, avoiding texts which already received supposedly definitive editions. The chapter argues that subjectivity is a central element of the philological practice. It also argues that philologists often present their conjectures as a way to access the subjectivity of ancient writers. Wilamowitz even suggested a religious explanation, derived from Plutarch’s daemonology. The rhetoric of presenting a conjecture is often based on the concepts of truth, certainty, finality. Conjectures immortalise their authors. An AI ‘conjecture' is deeply subversive of the religious and immortalising language of classical philology outlined here. However, AI can be extremely helpful in editing a large number of non-canonical texts that still lack reliable editions.