Doza & Boyarin
Doza
I was just going through a set of old manuscripts and thought about how we balance preserving them with making them accessible—do you think the preservation standards should change as technology advances?
Boyarin
The standards shouldn’t shift simply because the tools get shinier. A manuscript’s value lies in its original ink, parchment, the way it was written, not in how well it shows up on a screen. Technology can aid us in copying and sharing, but the preservation of the original must remain rigorous. Otherwise we risk turning history into a digital copy with no tangible legacy.
Doza
I hear you, and I think the core idea—keeping the original untouched—is sound. But perhaps we could look at a middle ground: keeping the original intact while also ensuring the digital copies are exact, so future scholars have both the physical and a faithful, detailed record. It might help us balance tradition with accessibility. What do you think about setting strict guidelines for digitization that mirror the physical preservation standards?
Boyarin
It’s a reasonable compromise, but only if the guidelines are as exacting as the physical ones. The digital copy must match the original in color, texture, ink depth, even the minute blemishes that give a manuscript its character. Otherwise you’re creating a facsimile that misleads future scholars. The protocol should cover resolution, color calibration, file format, and rigorous verification against the source. And we must keep the original untouched—no digitization can replace the heritage that lives in the parchment. If we’re going to blend tradition and access, the blend must never dilute the integrity of either.
Doza
I appreciate how carefully you’ve laid out those points, and I think the emphasis on strict fidelity is essential. It does feel a bit like walking a tightrope, though—every extra check adds time and cost, and we risk slowing down access for those who need it. Perhaps we could pilot a small batch, see how the technical demands stack up against the preservation goals, and adjust from there. That way we keep the original safe, maintain high standards, and still make the manuscripts usable for researchers and the public. What do you think about starting with a test run?
Boyarin
A test run sounds prudent, but remember it should be rigorous enough to prove the method, not a mere rehearsal. Pick manuscripts that span the spectrum of fragility and complexity, set a strict audit trail, and keep the original in its vault untouched. If the pilot proves the digital fidelity can match the physical standards without compromising the manuscript, then you can scale. Until then, I’ll reserve my endorsement.
Doza
That sounds like a solid approach. I’ll draft a detailed plan that picks manuscripts from the most delicate to the most complex, sets clear resolution and color‑matching standards, and creates an audit trail that logs every step—camera settings, calibration data, file format, and a verification comparison. I’ll also include a timeline for the pilot, checkpoints for quality control, and a review process before any scaling. Once we’ve completed the pilot and confirmed the digital copies meet the physical fidelity criteria, we can move forward. Let me know if that framework works for you.
Boyarin
Your framework looks solid, but remember each checkpoint must produce hard data, not just a checklist. The audit trail has to be immutable, and the verification comparison should be objective—no room for interpretation. If the pilot meets those criteria, I’ll grant the go‑ahead. If not, we retreat to the original and revise. That’s the only way to keep our legacy intact.