vi. Historical Collation
The remaining principal division of the apparatus is the one which
records the variant readings that have occurred in significant editions of the
text. Its emphasis is historical, as distinguished from the list of
emendations, where the emphasis is on the changes made by the present
editor in the basic text he is following. Some of those changes were
probably adopted from (or noted in) other editions, but the primary function
of the entries in the list of emendations is not to provide the history of the
variant readings at those points;[63]
such history, as well as the history of other variants (where no emendation
of the copy-text occurred), is reserved for this "historical collation," as it
is often called. Two limitations are normally imposed on the historical
collation. In the first place, it does not usually survey (at least in the case
of nineteenth- and twentieth-century works) every edition of the text which
has ever appeared, but only those of
possible textual significance; thus all authorized editions which were
published during the author's lifetime are included (since any changes
present in them could have resulted from his revision), as well as any
posthumous editions which purport to utilize newly available authoritative
documents or which could conceivably have utilized such evidence.[64]
Second, the historical collation is generally limited to substantive variants,
on the grounds that variants in accidentals from edition to edition are of so
little significance (particularly in light of Greg's rationale for selecting a
copy-text) as not to justify the great amount of space and labor which a
record of them would entail.
[65] This
limitation obviously necessitates distinguishing substantives from
accidentals, not always an easy task; but if the distinction is to be
meaningful, one should guard against admitting variants in punctuation into
the historical collation as "semisubstantives" unless they clearly involve
substantial alterations of meaning.
Some editions (such as the Howells and the Irving) limit the historical
collation in one further way: by entitling it "Rejected Substantives" and
listing in it only those substantive variants which are not adopted as
emendations in the copy-text. Under the basic form of this system, each
entry in the list of emendations must provide the full history of the readings
at that spot, because none of these entries will reappear later in the
historical collation. In effect, the historical collation is split into two lists,
one containing entries involving emendation of the copy-text and another
covering the remaining substantive variants, where no emendation is
involved. (In another version of this system, any agreements with the
rejected copy-text reading in editions later than the one from which the
emendation is drawn — or any additional post-copy-text readings
—
would appear in the list of rejected substantives, and thus in these cases the
list of emendations would not provide
the entire history of the variants.)[66]
The obvious motive for this arrangement is economy, and there is no doubt
that in many cases the apparatus can be considerably shortened by the
procedure; how much it is shortened depends on the number of substantive
emendations (exclusive of those initiated by the editor at points where no
other variants exist), since under this system none of them would have to
be repeated in the historical collation. If a particular text requires an
extremely large number of substantive emendations, it is possible that so
much space might be saved as to justify this method on grounds of economy
alone; but in most situations it is perhaps questionable whether the saving
of a few pages is the most important consideration. The price paid for the
economy, after all, is some loss of clarity and convenience. For one thing,
the functions of the two lists become less clear-cut and distinct and
therefore less easy to explain to the reader and less easy for him to
comprehend: one list serves both as a record of editorial emendations
(substantives and accidentals) in the copy-text and as a partial historical
collation, and the other completes the historical collation (for substantive
variants only). In addition, the reader making a serious study of the variants
may be somewhat inconvenienced by
not having the full range of historical evidence regarding substantive
variants brought together in a single list or at a single place,
[67] necessitating a search through the
emendations list. Of course, if the emendations are divided into two lists,
one for substantives and one for accidentals (as they probably should be
whenever a list of "rejected substantives" replaces a full historical
collation), this objection carries less force. But the fact remains that an
emendations list is predicated on the idea that it is important to have a
concise and readily accessible record of all textual changes made in the
copy-text; if that list is made to carry part of the burden of the historical
collation as well, then it becomes in effect a segment of the historical
collation, and the logic of having two lists becomes less clear. In most
cases, it would seem that the slightly greater space required for a full
historical collation (that is, one which includes
adopted as well as rejected substantive variants) is offset by the advantages
of keeping the historical evidence intact — and separate from the
record
of the editor's conclusions based on that evidence.
The form of the entry in a historical collation is essentially the same
as in a list of emendations, except that the sources of the rejected readings
must be specified (whereas in a list of emendations the rejected readings are
by definition from the copy-text and thus do not have to be individually
identified as such). In addition, since the reading from the edited text
provides the lemma in each case, there is strictly speaking no necessity to
identify its source, since if it is not from the copy-text its source is recorded
in the list of emendations.
Even in a simple entry, therefore, these differences reflect the differing
functions of the two lists:
10.31 whom] W; who [list of emendations]
10.31 whom] who 50-60,E [historical collation]
Although it is not necessary in the historical collation to specify the
source(s) of the lemmata, it does no harm, particularly in the cases of those
which are emendations. Furthermore, the list of emendations names only
the immediate source of an emendation, and if the historical collation does
not specify later editions in which this reading occurs, the history of the
variant is provided only by implication:
127.4 moan] moon 37-42; mean 60-70
127.4 moan] 45-57; moon 37-42; mean 60-70
Both these entries convey the same information, but in the first the reader
has to be told that any of the collated editions not specified agree with the
lemma, while in the second the history of the lemma is provided explicitly.
It is a common practice to say that editions not listed agree with the reading
to the left of the bracket; when a great many editions and variants are
involved, the economy of this system no doubt makes it a sensible one, but
it does require that the reader be familiar enough with the editions collated
to remember which ones are not specified (or else he has to turn to the list
of collated editions to see which ones they are). Although the entries can
be run on in paragraph form, they are generally presented on separate lines,
and specifying the history of the lemma does not usually cause an entry to
spill over into a second line; under these circumstances, there seems little
reason not to aid the reader by naming explicitly (or in inclusive form, as
"45-57") all the editions covered.
[68]
One of McKerrow's symbols, the plus sign, has frequently been used to
signify all collated editions later than the one indicated; using the plus sign
is preferable to allowing this information to be implied by the absence of
certain
sigla, but unless the number of editions is very large it would be still better
to specify them individually.
[69] When
they are so specified, the reader can study the variants of any given edition
by running his eye down the page and noting the appearances of the proper
siglum (or the groupings which include it), without having to remember or
figure out where that siglum would fall in entries which do not list it (or
clearly refer to it). Finally, the form of the entire list may be further
modified by leaving out the brackets and semicolons and arranging the
readings in columns. The advantages are the same as when the column form
is used in the emendations list, but the limitation of this arrangement is that
it is awkward if more than two or three variants are involved in individual
entries. When, for example, there is only one American and one English
edition — as in the case of Melville — a two-column
historical
collation is feasible;
[70] but when a work went through
more than two editions, with the resulting possibility of more variant
readings (but not the same number in each instance), the conventional form,
with brackets following lemmata and semicolons following sigla, is to be
preferred.
[71]
Variants within impressions raise special problems for the historical
collation, just as they do for the list of emendations. Since a knowledge of
such variants in the copy-text edition is necessary for the precise
specification of copy-text, they should certainly be recorded (at least those
which involve more than variations in inking or slight type damage); but
since these variations are likely to be in accidentals as well as substantives,
not all of them would be appropriate for recording in the historical collation
(if, as usual, that collation is limited to substantives). It seems sensible,
therefore, to set up a special list to record such variants[72] (examples are the lists of
press-variants
in the Dekker and Beaumont-Fletcher editions and the lists of variants
within the first and within the second editions in the Ohio State
Scarlet
Letter); alternatively — or additionally — these
variants can be
discussed in the textual essay as
part of the definition of copy-text or of the bibliographical comment on
other editions (as in the Melville edition). If any of the variants do turn out
to be substantives, they should also be reported in the regular historical
collation, since they form a part of the full history of the readings at these
points. But determining which ones are substantives sometimes turns
—
as information about variants within impressions necessarily turns —
on
the particular group of copies collated or examined. In Chapter 70 of
Melville's White-Jacket, for instance, the American edition
(copy-text) reads "President" at a point where many copies of the English
edition read "[]resident"; the space suggests that a "P" failed to print, but
what did print — "resident" — is a different word, and, if no
copies
of the English edition could be found with the "P," the word would
technically be a substantive variant. Copies reading "President" were
eventually located, however, and this variant
— though it deserves mention in the textual essay (or in a special
list)
— need not be entered in the historical collation. Once again, the
intimate
connection between descriptive bibliography and editing is evident: the
greater the number of copies which are examined, the more reliable the
evidence on which the edition is based.
The idea of separating certain categories of historical information for
presentation in special lists can be applied to other situations as well. Two
kinds of special lists may result. One kind merely repeats data present in
the full historical collation — data which the reader may find useful
to
have brought together in one spot. In the Hawthorne edition, for example,
there are sometimes (as in The
Blithedale Romance and The Marble Faun) lists of
rejected first-edition substantive variants (rejected in favor of manuscript
readings). The entries in these lists are included in the full historical
collation, but because of their importance for critical study they are made
more easily accessible by this additional listing as a separate group.[73] This type of list is purely for the
reader's
convenience and can be a great help when there is an important category of
variants difficult to survey as a whole in the regular historical collation. The
other kind of special list (like the list of variants within an impression)
records information which should be made available to the reader but
which, though historical in nature, does not readily fit into the historical
collation. This situation often arises in treating pre-copy-text variants (such
as alterations in a manuscript), especially if variants in accidentals as well
as substantives are to be
reported. Of course, if only substantive pre-copy-text variants are recorded,
and if they are not of such quantity as to overwhelm all the later substantive
variants, they can simply be included in the regular historical collation (as
in the Wisconsin Mahomet), and no separate list is required.
But when either of these conditions does not apply, a special list is
advisable. In the Hawthorne edition, both accidental and substantive
alterations in the manuscripts of The Blithedale Romance and
The Marble Faun are listed, and the number of substantive
alterations alone is far greater than the total number of substantive variants
in the later editions; under these circumstances, the wisest course, adopted
by the Ohio State edition, is to provide separate lists entitled "Alterations
in the Manuscript."[74] These special
historical lists including both substantives and accidentals are also
appropriate on occasion for post-copy-text variants,
as when a particular later edition is of enough importance in the history of
the text to warrant recording all its textual variants. An example, in the
Ohio State Scarlet Letter, is the list of variants between the
first
and second editions; any substantive variants in this list naturally occur in
the regular historical collation as well, but they are repeated here along with
the variants in accidentals to facilitate study of the precise relationship
between the two texts. The basic historical collation, therefore,
will often be buttressed by additional lists, sometimes regrouping
information for the reader's convenience and sometimes reporting
supplementary information.
[75]
Any consideration of editorial apparatus is misguided if it loses sight
of the convenience of the reader. For some audiences, the apparatus may
be irrelevant and need not accompany the edited text; but for most scholarly
audiences an edition without apparatus resembles any other work that lacks
documentation — it may be brilliantly done, but it provides no aids
for
facilitating the scholar's independent investigation of the evidence. The
apparatus (as the word itself suggests) is a tool for expediting further study,
and a tool, to be effective, must be as simple and as easy to use as the
circumstances allow. Fredson Bowers — through his connections
with
editions of Dekker, Beaumont and Fletcher, Fielding, Hawthorne, Crane,
and Dewey — has done more than anyone else to set the course of
modern apparatus along these lines. As a result of his efforts, there is now
not only a widespread acceptance of an efficient basic approach to apparatus
but also an increased awareness of the
significance of apparatus. Though just a tool appended to a text, the
apparatus may well be the only part of an edition that can meaningfully be
called "definitive": there may legitimately be differences of opinion about
certain emendations which an editor makes, but a responsible apparatus is
a definitive statement of the textual situation (within the limits of the copies
examined). What constitutes an apparatus responsible in both form and
content is therefore a matter worth serious consideration. Only by being
fully cognizant of the issues and problems involved in setting up an
apparatus can an editor make those decisions which will establish his
apparatus as a lasting contribution to literary study.
