 | |  |
Although the editing of literary texts has long been regarded as one of the basic tasks of literary scholars, I think it can be said that in the last fifteen years an unusual amount of scholarly attention has been directed toward editing and editorial theory. The situation is particularly striking in the field of American literature, for these years have witnessed the development of a coordinated effort—on a scale rare in scholarly endeavor generally and unparalleled in the editing of literature in English—to produce full-scale editions of most of the major (and several other important) nineteenth-century American writers. The need for reliable editions of the principal American figures had been given official recognition much earlier, when the American Literature Group of the Modern Language Association of America established—in 1947-48—a Committee on Definitive Editions, with Willard Thorp as chairman. Although that committee was unsuccessful in securing financial support for such editions, it laid the groundwork for continued discussion, which, after two conferences in 1962, resulted in the establishment in 1963 of the Center for Editions of American Authors. Since that time the Center has coordinated the work on fourteen editions[1] and since 1966 has allocated funds amounting to more than one and a half million dollars, provided by the National Endowment for the Humanities of the National Foundation on the Arts and Humanities. (In addition, many universities and university presses, as well as the Office of Education of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, have helped with individual editions.) As a result, more than one
The fact that an accomplishment of such magnitude, involving the cooperation of more than two hundred scholars, could be produced in little more than a decade of concentrated work—to say nothing of the existence of the Center as an official committee of the MLA or of its support by public funds—suggests a widespread recognition of the importance of the whole undertaking. This is not to say, however, that there is any unanimity of opinion as to the precise editorial principles which ought to be followed, and the CEAA editions have been the subject of a considerable number of critical attacks, directed both to particular editions and to general matters of policy. Now one of the unusual features of the CEAA as a scholarly coordinating committee is that it has insisted, from the beginning, that certain editorial principles be followed in any edition that is to be associated with it and receive its approval. To this end, it has established a seal to be printed in every volume which meets the requirements, certifying that the text is "An Approved Text" of the CEAA. The administration of this plan obviously involves the pre-publication inspection of each text by an examiner appointed by the Center, and the result is that any reader who sees the CEAA seal on a volume knows that its text has been prepared in conformity with a set of carefully defined guidelines, relating not only to editorial theory but to the practicalities of setting forth evidence and of proofreading as well. In essence, the editorial principles of the CEAA—set forth in its Statement of Editorial Principles and Procedures (originally published in 1967 and revised in 1972) —are those enunciated by W. W. Greg in his famous paper for the 1949 English Institute, "The Rationale of Copy-Text." Although he was talking specifically about English dramatic literature of the Renaissance, his discussion raised basic questions applicable to editorial theory in general, and his "rationale" has since been adopted by
The time now seems appropriate—since both the CEAA and its critics have a substantial amount of material in print—to review the phenomenon of this debate.[3] Certainly the existence and the accomplishment of the CEAA as an institution constitute a phenomenon unique in the history of literary scholarship in English; but the response to the CEAA also is phenomenal in the amount of critical notice which it has bestowed on editorial and textual concerns. The controversy has doubtless caused people who normally pay little attention to editing to focus on some of the problems involved in editorial work, and as a result editing may have moved somewhat nearer to being a matter of vital concern to the scholarly literary world at large. Even if the tone of some of the discussion has served as a poor introduction to scholarly debate in this area, the fact remains that a number of respected figures have raised objections on matters of principle, and their criticisms deserve to be given serious attention. Sometimes, as it happens, their comments prove to be beside the point because of a misconception as to the nature of Greg's rationale or of its use by the CEAA; but some legitimate issues, worthy of continuing scrutiny, are raised in the process. An analysis of these discussions, it seems to me, must begin with a re-examination of Greg's seminal essay. By this time, that essay has reached the status of a classic; and, like any classic statement, it has so frequently been adduced to support or refute particular arguments that renewed exegesis of the document itself seems called for periodically. An understanding of exactly what Greg said is a prerequisite for examining, first, what application of his principles the CEAA stands for and, second, what criticisms of his and the CEAA's position have been put forth. In such an examination, it is important always to distinguish between theoretical and practical concerns. Criticisms on either level demand careful attention, but it is no aid to orderly thinking to treat purely practical questions as if they involved theoretical issues. I hope that these notes can begin to clarify the context within which each of the arguments must be judged and can thus help to provide a perspective from which the whole controversy can profitably be viewed.
| | |