III
At the time when Boyd's Jefferson was about to come
out
and the NHPC to be revitalized, there were some editions other than the
Walpole
which might have been turned to as models, and it is unfortunate that they
did not have more influence at that strategic moment. The Walpole edition,
because of the enormous size of the undertaking, may have seemed a closer
parallel to the large editions which were projected to accommodate the
masses of papers accumulated by statesmen; but certain smaller editions
could have offered a sounder textual policy. Paget Toynbee and Leonard
Whibley's three-volume edition of
Correspondence of Thomas
Gray (Clarendon Press, 1935), for instance, states, "The text is
printed as Gray or his correspondents wrote it, with the spelling,
punctuation, use of capitals, and abbreviations of the originals" (p. xxiii);
and Ralph L. Rusk's six-volume edition of
The Letters of Ralph
Waldo Emerson (Columbia University Press, 1939) requires little
space for an explanation of editorial policy, for Rusk says simply, "I have
tried to print a literal text, with no interpolated corrections or
apologies" (p. v). Gordon N. Ray's four-volume edition of
The
Letters and Private Papers of William Makepeace Thackeray
(Harvard University Press, 1945-46) is a model edition. Ray presents "a
literal text" and is not bothered, as so many editors seem to be, by
sentences which end with dashes rather than periods. In an admirable
statement, he sums up why it is important to preserve in print the spelling
and punctuation of the manuscripts:
Thackeray, the most informal of letter writers, was a past master at
shaping his sentences in the precise contour of his thoughts by oddities of
punctuation and orthography and by whimsical distortions of words not
unlike Swift's "little language" in the Journal to Stella. Not
to
reproduce these peculiarities faithfully would be to falsify the tone and blur
the meaning of the letters. (p. lxxiii)
Although the details which lead to this conclusion might have to be altered
somewhat in the case of other writers, it is difficult to see how the
conclusion itself could be improved upon as a guiding statement for all
editors of letters.
Another notable edition, which began to appear just after the first
volume of the Jefferson but early enough that it could have been influential
in the formative days of the new NHPC, is Elting E. Morison's
eight-volume edition of The Letters of Theodore Roosevelt
(Harvard University Press, 1951-54). The letters are "printed as written
without further indication of Roosevelt's frequent and startling departures
from the norm of accepted usage in spelling." Morison, like Ray, has given
careful thought to the rationale for such a policy, and he makes an
intelligent statement of the case:
No doubt this will strike the readers, as it has from time to time
struck the editors, as a piece of unnecessarily solemn scholarship. But it
seemed simpler, and safer on the whole, to leave Roosevelt's own text
untouched rather than to interfere from time to time to correct or alter
words or phrases to conform to what must be, in some cases, assumed
meanings. Also these letters may serve as interesting documents on
causation, since they were written by the President to whom the mission of
simplified spelling commended itself. (p. xix)
Also during these years historical editors in particular should have been
aware of the excellent example being set by Clarence E. Carter in his major
project,
The Territorial Papers of the United States
(Government Printing Office, 1934- ); it was in 1956, in the introduction
to the twenty-second volume, that he made an important statement of his
aim of "literal reproduction."
[68] Even
more persuasively than in his
Historical Editing, he pleads the
case for an unmodernized text:
in brief, the idiosyncrasies of both the writer and the age are
preserved. To proceed otherwise would be to bypass certain significant
facets of the cultural status of an earlier era as glimpsed in the character of
the written record, which, it is submitted, equates with the bare facts of
politics and wars as historical grist. (pp. viii-ix)
Modernization, he rightly concludes, "tends to obscure rather than to
clarify." Some literary editors, too, were commenting in the 1950s on the
importance of exact transcription of letters and journals. R. W. Chapman,
reproducing the manuscripts "as closely as typography admits" in his
three-volume edition of
The Letters of Samuel Johnson
(Clarendon Press, 1952), points out the value of errors:
I have preserved Johnson's occasional inadvertences, such as the
omission or repetition of small words, partly because they furnish some
indication of his state of health or his state of mind, partly because they
show the sort of error to which he was prone and may therefore help us in
judging the text of those letters of which the originals are lost. (p.
viii)
[69]
Kathleen Coburn, at the beginning of
The Notebooks of Samuel
Taylor Coleridge (Pantheon Books [later Princeton University
Press],
1957- ),
[70] agrees, stating that "Slips
of the pen are respected, in conformity with the argument of Dr. Chapman
in editing Johnson, that such things have their own interest and
significance" (p. xxx), and she adds that Coleridge himself remarked on this
point.
[71] Howard Horsford, editing
Melville's
Journal of a Visit to Europe and the Levant
(Princeton University Press, 1955), suggests the importance of precision in
his careful descriptions of cancellations and his thorough discussion of the
difficulties of Melville's handwriting. Hyder Edward Rollins, in
The
Letters of John Keats (Harvard University Press, 1958), notes that
"Keats penned his sentences rapidly and spontaneously, not carefully and
artfully" (p. 17), and therefore his "queer punctuation" and "occasional
grammatical slips" are indicative and should not be rectified. And Thomas
H. Johnson's edition of
The Letters of Emily Dickinson
(Belknap
Press of Harvard University Press, 1958) presents all holograph letters "in
their verbatim form" (p. xxv), which involves many dashes.
[72] With editions of this kind available
to
point the way, the NHPC editors of the late 1950s were unwise to turn in
a different direction.
In 1960 four editions appeared which, in their somewhat differing
ways, represent the approaches followed by the best of the literary editions
of the 1960s and 1970s. All are characterized by scrupulous reporting of
details of the manuscripts, but what distinguishes a number of them from
most earlier careful editions of manuscripts is a system—not unlike
that
long in use for printed copy-texts—whereby certain categories of
emendation can be allowed in the text, with the original readings preserved
in notes or lists. Henry Nash Smith and William M. Gibson's edition of
Mark Twain-Howells Letters (Belknap Press of Harvard
University Press, 1960) involves no normalizing of punctuation or spelling,
and it records significant cancellations. James Franklin Beard, in The
Letters and Journals of James Fenimore Cooper (Belknap Press of
Harvard University Press, 1960-68), does alter some punctuation
for clarity and amend some spellings, but these editorial alterations are
recorded in footnotes (except for a few specific categories),
[73] while "legible cancellations" are
incorporated into the text within angle brackets. The text of Merrell R.
Davis and William H. Gilman's edition of
The Letters of Herman
Melville (Yale University Press, 1960) also incorporates a few
emendations of punctuation for clarity, but they are all listed in the
meticulous textual notes at the end. These notes additionally include such
details as foreshortened (hastily written) words: one can learn from them
that what appears in the edited text as "thing," for example, resembles
"thng" in the manuscript (merely misspelled words, of course, are not
altered). Cancellations are all transcribed, either in the text (in angle
brackets, along with braces for insertions) or in the textual notes.
The
Journals and Miscellaneous Notebooks of Ralph Waldo Emerson
(Belknap
Press of Harvard University Press, 1960- ), edited by William H. Gilman
et al., goes farther in the use of symbols to record as much
textual information as possible within the text. It aims to come "as close to
a
literatim transcription" as is feasible in print (p. xxxviii)
and
does indicate the stages of Emerson's revision with great precision; some
categories of editorial alteration, here too, are not labeled in the text but are
reported in textual notes at the end. The volumes of Emerson
Journals which appeared after the CEAA emblem was
instituted
have received the emblem, and later CEAA editions of journals further
illustrate the modern practice of the full recording of manuscript
characteristics. Washington Irving's
Journals and Notebooks
(University of Wisconsin Press, 1969- ), as edited by Henry A. Pochmann
et al.,
[74] is
uncompromisingly literal (it respects Irving's lowercase sentence openings,
for example) and
contains one of the most thorough discussions in print (pp. xix-xxvi) of the
problems involved in exact transcription (amply demonstrating that the
process is not mechanical). Claude M. Simpson's edition of
The
American Notebooks of Nathaniel Hawthorne (Ohio State University
Press, 1972), as is usual with CEAA volumes, makes some emendations in
the text but records them, as well as authorial alterations of the manuscript,
in lists at the end. And Mark Twain's
Notebooks &
Journals
(University of California Press, 1975- ), as edited by Frederick Anderson
et al., offers an
excellent discussion of editorial procedures (pp. 575-84) and is a model of
how to combine the emendation of certain obvious errors (always listed at
the end, accompanied by "doubtful readings") with the preservation of "the
texture of autograph documents" (which contain "irregularities,
inconsistencies, errors, and cancellations").
[75]
These are not the only praiseworthy editions of letter and journals in
the 1960s and 1970s,[76] and a few
others deserve mention not simply for their high standards of literal
transcription but for the cogency of their statements justifying that
approach. Shelley and His Circle (Harvard University Press,
1961- ), edited from the holdings of the Carl H. Pforzheimer Library by
Kenneth Neill Cameron (later by Donald H. Reiman),[77] surpasses all these other editions
in its
efforts to reproduce in type the features of manuscripts—printing
careted
material, for example, above the line and in smaller type. The aim is "the
traditional one" of producing "a foundational text . . . from which other
editors may depart as they wish," and the rationale is stated with great
effectiveness:
There is, moreover, it seems to us, aside from the question of
accuracy of representation a positive value in this traditional method which
is insufficiently stressed. Changes, no matter how trivial, take the reader
one remove from the author. An author's own punctuation, his cancellations
and interlineations, even his misspellings, play a part in expressing mood
or personality. Retained, they make a text no more difficult to read than an
everyday letter from a friend. And even if an occasional passage could be
made clearer by changing it, such exceptions are not, in our opinion,
balanced by the total loss. (p. xxxiv)
Herbert M. Schueller and Robert L. Peters, in their edition of
The
Letters of John Addington Symonds (Wayne State University Press,
1967-69), give some additional reasons for offering a literal text:
We know that sometimes a quiet changing of manuscripts meets with
approval; this practice, however, seems indefensible with respect to
Symonds because, 1) the letters were not edited by him for
publication, 2) they extend over his whole lifetime and show the influences
of maturity on his personal expression, 3) the continuing characteristics are
often Victorian practices rather than personal idiosyncrasies, and 4) to make
deliberate changes in the originals is to go beyond the prerogatives even of
editors. (p. 14)
In
The Journals and Letters of Fanny Burney (Clarendon
Press,
1972- ), Joyce Hemlow
[78] allows
errors to stand "as the normal hazards of hasty or spontaneous writing" and
believes that "the twentieth-century reader probably needs few such props"
as modernization (p. lviii). Leslie A. Marchand, in his editorial introduction
to "
In my hot youth": Byron's Letters and Journals (Murray,
1973- ), adds further to the strength of the case:
Byron's punctuation follows no rules of his own or others' making.
He used dashes and commas freely, but for no apparent reason, other than
possibly for natural pause between phrases, or sometimes for emphasis. He
is guilty of the "comma splice", and one can seldom be sure where he
intended to end a sentence, or whether he recognized the sentence as a unit
of expression. . . . Byron himself recognized his lack of knowledge of the
logic or the rules of punctuation. . . . It is not without reason then that
most editors, including R. E. Prothero, have imposed sentences and
paragraphs on him in line with their interpretation of his intended meaning.
It is my feeling, however, that this detracts from the impression of Byronic
spontaneity and the onrush of ideas in his letters, without a compensating
gain in clarity. In fact, it may often arbitrarily impose a meaning or an
emphasis not intended by the writer. I feel that there is less danger of
distortion if the reader may see
exactly how he punctuated and then determine whether a phrase between
commas or dashes belongs to one sentence or another. (p. 28)
Marchand, like most of the other advocates of this point of view, adds that
the unmodernized text is not difficult to read; but the reasons for not
modernizing, it is clear, are of sufficient weight that the question of
whether the resulting text is somewhat difficult to read is of secondary
importance.
[79]
The statements quoted here, which make a number of different points
and refer to a variety of periods and kinds of material, add up to an
impressive argument and are no doubt sufficient in themselves as a criticism
of the partially modernized and silently emended editions described earlier.
Merely to juxtapose comments on editorial policy from the two kinds of
edition is to show up the weaknesses of attempting to justify modernization
and silent alterations in scholarly editions of historical documents. But it
will perhaps be useful to try to sort out more clearly the issues involved,
especially since there has been so little discussion of the matter, at least in
connection with the editions of statesmen's papers. Although a voluminous
literature has grown up around the NHPRC editions, it contains very little
commentary on textual procedures, and what there is seldom touches on
fundamental questions. The NHPRC editions have probably been more
extensively reviewed than the CEAA
editions; but in both fields it is difficult to find reviewers who can
adequately analyze textual policies, and the reviews of NHPRC volumes in
particular have almost consistently slighted—or ignored completely,
except for a perfunctory word of praise—the textual aspects of the
editions.[80] The historical significance
of the contents of these editions
and the quality of the explanatory annotation—on which the reviews
concentrate—are important matters, but the way in which the text has
been established and presented is surely of first importance in evaluating an
edition.
Considerable criticism has been directed at the NHPRC editions but
for essentially irrelevant or trivial reasons. One objection, raised by
Leonard W. Levy, for example, in his reviews of the Madison edition, is
that the explanatory annotation is carried to excessive lengths.[81] Another criticism questions the
choice of
material to be edited. J. H. Plumb, among others, believes that too much
attention is paid to unimportant documents,[82] and Jesse Lemisch argues that the
pattern
of figures chosen to be edited reflects a bias "in the direction of white male
political leaders."[83] Whatever justice
there may be to these opinions, they have nothing to do with the quality of
the editions themselves. If the annotation is accurate and helpful, it will be
of use, and there is little point in wishing there were less of it; and any
document or figure is of some historical interest. Individual tastes
regarding what material is worth spending time on, and judgments about
priorities, will naturally vary; one may deplore another's choice of subject,
but it is unrealistic to criticize accomplished work for having usurped time
better spent on something else. Still another frequent complaint is that
letterpress editions
are too expensive and time-consuming to produce and that microfilm
publication of the documents would be cheaper, faster, and more
appropriate.
[84] Certainly the
well-established microfilm publication programs of the NHPRC, the
National Archives, the Library of Congress, and various state historical
societies are to be praised;
[85] but
making photographic reproductions of document collections widely available
is by no means a substitute for editing those documents,
[86] as Julian Boyd and Lester Cappon,
among
others, have effectively pointed out.
[87]
The skilled editor, employing his critical intelligence and fund of historical
detail, establishes a text which marks an advance in knowledge over the
mere existence of the document itself. Microfilm editions of unedited
documents do not obviate true editions; but editing takes time, and one is
back at the earlier question
of individual priorities for spending time.
These controversies are really peripheral to the main business of
editing. Since individual priorities do differ, anyone may decide not to
become an editor; but for those who elect to undertake editorial projects,
surely the first priority is the text itself, its treatment and presentation. And
when one considers the divergences of textual policy which
distinguish most NHPRC editions from the CEAA and CSE editions, the
first question to ask is whether there is an essential difference between the
materials of historical interest and those of literary interest that would
necessitate differing treatments. Nathan Reingold, in a letter to the
American Scholar (45 [1976], 319) commenting on Peter
Shaw's article, suggests such an explanation, pointing out that the CEAA
editors work with printed texts, whereas the historical editors for the most
part deal with thousands of "scrappy and informal" bits of manuscript. It
is true that the bulk of the CEAA and CSE editions are of works which
have previously appeared in print,
[88]
but those editions do include numerous volumes of manuscript letters and
journals, and of course in the literary field in general many editions of such
material exist. It may also be true that letters predominate in editions of
statesmen's papers, but the comprehensive editions do
include speeches, reports, and other works of a public nature normally
intended for distribution in printed form. Is a letter written by a literary
figure in some way fundamentally different from a letter written by a
statesman? Both are historical documents: literary history is still history,
and all letters offer historical evidence. And either letter may be regarded
as "literature": a statesman may produce masterly letters, and a literary
figure may write pedestrian ones. Is a novel or a poem fundamentally
different from a work which a statesman prepares for publication? At their
extremes, imaginative literature and factual reporting seem to be different
kinds of communication, but in between there is a large area in which they
overlap. No clear line can be drawn between writing which is "literature"
and writing which is not. Certainly the editor of an individual's whole
corpus of papers is likely to encounter writings which can be regarded
either way: some of Franklin's and
Jefferson's best-known writings have often been classified and analyzed as
literary works, whereas Hawthorne's
Life of Franklin Pierce
and Whitman's journalism are not always considered literature. There
sometimes seems to be an assumption that close attention to textual
nuances—and thus the need for recording textual details—is
more vital
to the study of literary works and other writings by literary figures.
[89] Apparently that is part of
Frederick
B. Tolles's point when he criticizes the "zeal" of the editor of George
Mercer's papers for her "reverent handling" of the texts: "it seems
important to remind ourselves," he says, "that they are not sacred codices
of Holy Writ or variant quartos of
Hamlet."
[90] He also means, of course, that
Mercer's
papers are not as important as
Hamlet. But neither the
importance nor the literary quality of a piece of writing determines the
amount of attention that must be paid to nuances of expression; if one
seriously wishes to understand a text, whatever it is, no aspect of it can be
slighted.
[91] There is no fundamental
distinction, then, from a textual point of view, between the materials edited
by the historian and those edited by the literary scholar. Letters, journals,
published works, and manuscripts of unpublished works fall into both
fields; all of them are historical documents, and any of them can be
"literary."
[92]
A distinction does need to be made, but not between literary and
historical materials. Rather, the important distinction is between two kinds
of writings which both historians and literary scholars have to deal with:
works intended for publication and private papers.[93] Works intended for publication are
generally expected to conform to certain conventions not applicable to
private documents. For example, a finished work is expected to incorporate
the author's latest decisions about what word he wishes to stand at each
spot; in a private notebook jotting, however, or even in a letter to a friend,
he can suggest alternative words and is under no obligation to come to a
decision among them.[94] Similarly,
he can spell and punctuate as he pleases in a private document, but he will
have difficulty getting a work published if it does not conform, at least to
some extent, to current standards. Whether or not a writer really wishes to
have his manuscript altered by a publisher's editor or a printer to bring it
into such conformity is a complex question of intention, and editorial debate
on this issue is likely to continue. Some editors feel that a surviving
completed manuscript of a published work is the proper choice for
copy-text because it reflects the author's characteristics more accurately,
while others feel that the published text should be the copy-text because the
author expected his manuscript to be subjected to the normal routines of
publishing. No doubt the answer will vary in different situations, but this
is not the place to explore the question.
[95] The point here is to contrast that
situation
with the very different one which exists for private
documents. In the case of notebooks, diaries, letters, and the like, whatever
state they are in constitutes their finished form, and the question of whether
the writer "intended" something else is irrelevant. One still sometimes hears
the argument that an editor must make alterations in such documents
because the writer would have expected to make changes in them for
publication. If the writer had in fact prepared them for publication, they
would then no longer be private documents but works intended for the
public; they would have passed through the usual steps leading to
publication, as any other work would, and the author probably would have
made alterations in them, since the original documents would be parallel
with the rough or semifinal drafts of other kinds of works. But when the
writer did not prepare his own letters or diaries for publication, they remain
private papers. The scholarly editor who later wishes to make them public
is not in the same position as the writer or
the writer's contemporary publisher. Not only is it impossible for him to
know what the writer or his publisher would have done to them; but if he
presents them as anything more polished or finished than they were left by
the writer, he is falsifying their nature. A journal, as a piece of writing for
one's own use, is in its final form whenever one stops adding to it; a letter,
as a communication to a private audience of one or two, is in its
final form whenever it is posted. The writer is under no constraint to
conform to any particular convention in these writings, except to the extent
that he hopes a letter will be comprehensible to its recipient. Any
idiosyncrasies in them—however contrary to the standards for
published
works—are an essential part of their character.
These considerations lead to the conclusion that a scholarly edition of
letters or journals should not contain a text which has editorially been
corrected, made consistent, or otherwise smoothed out. Errors and
inconsistencies are part of the total texture of the document and are part of
the evidence which the document preserves relating to the writer's habits,
temperament, and mood. Modernization, too, is obviously out of place.
While it is not the same thing as the correction of errors or inconsistencies,
the line between the two is often difficult to establish. Even in many
published works the spelling, punctuation, and capitalization are
inconsistent, and to assume that the writers or publishers intended them to
be consistent or cared whether they were consistent or not is to read into
the situation a point of view held by many people today but one that has
apparently not always been held. Correcting errors is somewhat different,
since by definition an error is not intended;
but it is frequently difficult to avoid a modern bias in deciding what
constitutes an error. Editors of published works are increasingly recognizing
that to regularize or to make certain supposed corrections is to
modernize.[96]
In the case of private documents, then, where errors and
inconsistencies are an integral part of the text, the argument against
modernization is doubly strong. Indeed, the position that the text of a
scholarly edition of any material can ever be modernized is
indefensible. Many editors of literary works have long understood this
fact,[97] and it is difficult to explain
why such a large number of editors of private documents have, during the
same period, neglected it. They are not always cognizant of a distinction
between correcting and modernizing; but to subject
such documents to either is to violate their integrity. Ultimately the position
of these editors rests on a failure to grasp the significance of punctuation,
capitalization, and spelling as functional elements of written expression.
They think, as a result, that they can make alterations "for clarity" and "for
the reader's convenience" without affecting the content of the document in
any important way. In most instances, they greatly exaggerate the difficulty
of reading the original text, and it is hard to see how the reader's
"convenience" is really served by changing a dash to a period, an
ampersand to "and," or an upper-case letter to lower case.
[98] What, in the end, do they
accomplish,
other than depriving the reader of the experience of reading the original
text? Is the text "clearer" as a result of their labors? Frequently it is less
clear, because documentary editors rarely modernize more than a few
features, leaving the text with a confused and
unhistorical mixture of elements that clash with each other.
[99] What is intended as a help
becomes a
barrier between the reader and the text he is interested in reading. Anyone
who has examined a number of the partially modernized editions of letters
can only react with incredulity at the things which editors seem to think
readers need to have done for them. The modernizing editor is both
condescending and officious: he assumes that the reader is not serious
enough to persevere in reading a work if the punctuation, capitalization, and
spelling do not conform to present-day practice, and his belief in the
necessity of making changes blinds him to the triviality and senselessness
of many of his alterations.
[100]
Modernization, or partial modernization, is clearly incompatible with the
goals of the scholarly editing
of private documents—a fact which points to the most tragic
weakness of
many of the NHPRC editions.
Once it is settled that letters and journals are not to be presented in
a corrected or modernized text, there still remains the question of whether
editorial symbols are to be employed within the text or whether the text is
to be free of such symbols ("clear text"). Even though no corrections are
made,[101] there will be occasions
when the editor needs to introduce a comment, such as "word illegible,"
"edge of paper torn, eliminating several words," or "written in the margin."
Whether these explanations are entered in brackets in the text or printed as
appended notes is to some extent merely a mechanical matter. But there is
a theoretical aspect to the question. It is often argued that novels, essays,
poems, and other works intended for publication should be edited in clear
text, because such works are finished products, and the intrusion of
editorial apparatus into the text (recording emendations or variants, for
example) would be alien to the spirit
of the work. For this reason the CEAA editions of this kind of material are
in clear text, with the textual data relegated to lists at the ends of the
volumes.[102] Private documents are
different, however, in that they are often characterized by not being
smooth—by containing, that is, false starts, deletions, insertions, and
so
on. The problem of how to handle deletions gets to the heart of the matter.
Simply to leave them out, as is often done (or done on a selective basis),
is indefensible, since they are essential characteristics of private
documents.[103] One solution would
be to leave them out of the text and report them in notes. But to do so
would make the text appear smoother than it is; no evidence would be lost,
but the reader would have to reconstruct the text of the document, which
is after all of primary interest. If, on the other hand, the deletion is kept in
the text but clearly marked as a deletion (with
angle brackets or some other device),
the nature of the original is more accurately rendered in print. In reading
the original, one would see a phrase with a line through it, for instance, and
then read the phrase which replaced it; by keeping the deleted matter in the
text, the editor allows the reader to have the same experience. But when
canceled matter is recorded, it is essential at the same time to indicate
whether the replacement (if any) occurs on the same line or is inserted
above the line, so that the reader can tell whether the revision was made in
the process of writing the words or perhaps at a later time.
[104] A number of the NHPRC editions
devote
some attention to cancellations, but their frequent failure to specify
interlinear insertions makes it impossible for the reader to use properly the
texts of the cancellations which they do provide. Some situations can
become very complex and may require an editorial description of what has
happened as well as editorial symbols. This
description might well be placed in a note rather than in the text; but since
the text will contain editorial symbols in any case, one could decide to
include editorial comments—at least the brief ones, like
"illegible"—within the text.
[105]
The
crucial point is that if a private document is presented in clear text it loses
part of its texture.
[106]
The argument thus far has assumed that for any given text the
evidence available to the editor is a single document in the hand of the
author. In those cases the editor's goal is to reproduce in print as many of
the characteristics of the document as he can. The goal is not, in other
words, to produce a critical text, except to the extent that judgment is
involved in determining precisely what is in the manuscript. And judgment
is inevitably involved: the editor of Shelley and His Circle
points out that if a word clearly intended to be "even" looks more like
"ever" it is still transcribed as "even." Distinguishing between
an actual misspelling or slip of the pen and merely indistinct or hasty
handwriting requires careful judgment. The editor, even in presenting an
"exact" transcription of the text of a document, must keep the writer's
habits and intention in mind, if he is to be successful in discovering what
that text actually says at difficult spots. If, for instance, a manuscript
clearly reads "seperate," there is no doubt that the author wrote the word
with a middle "e"; whether or not the author intended to misspell is
irrelevant, so long as one agrees that an author's errors in private
documents are of interest and should be preserved. But if the word only
looks like "seperate" because the author has been careless in forming an "a"
in the second syllable, the editor who prints "seperate" is neither
transcribing accurately nor respecting the author's intention. In a case like
"even"/"ever," the intention as determined by the context plays a greater
role: deciphering handwriting and understanding
the content are inseparable.
[107] It is
frequently necessary, therefore, even in connection with a so-called "literal"
transcription, for an editor to append notes recording editorial decisions, if
the reader is to be fully apprised of the state of the manuscript. But these
decisions, it should be clearly understood, result from the effort to
determine what the text of the document actually says, not what the editor
believes it ought to say.
The situation is different, however, when the textual evidence is not
limited to a single holograph document; there may be several drafts,
versions, or copies, and they may be in the hand of a copyist or in printed
form. In such cases the editor has a fundamental decision to make about the
nature of his edited text: is it still to be a transcription of the text of a
single document (with evidence from related documents given in notes), or
is it to be a critical text which attempts through emendation (based on a
study of all the documents) to represent the writer's intentions more fully
than any single surviving document can? This decision will rest on the
nature of the surviving documents—on their relative authority and
completeness. When there are various versions or drafts of a letter in the
author's hand, the editor would normally choose the one actually posted,
if it survives, or the retained copy or latest surviving draft if it does not, as
the document to be edited;
variant readings and canceled matter in the other documents might then be
added in notes, but—in line with the reasoning suggested
above—they
would not be emended into the text itself. If, on the other hand, the extant
version or versions of a text are not in the author's hand—as when
a
letter
survives only in several scribal copies or in print—the editor is faced
with
the problem of distinguishing those features which reflect the author's
intention from those which result from the habits and errors of another
person (the copyist, the compositor, the printer's or publisher's reader, and
so on). Since the interest is in the characteristics of the author's expression,
not in those of a copyist or compositor, this problem is worth solving. For
if an editor presents the text of a nonholograph document in an exact
transcription, as he would that of a holograph document, he is respecting
equally its authorial and its nonauthorial features; but if he attempts, so far
as his evidence allows, to remove some of the nonauthorial features, he
comes that much closer to offering what was present in the author's
manuscript.
Editors of works which were intended to be made public commonly
have this problem to deal with. When confronted with a printed text or
texts, or with a printed text which differs from the author's manuscript, or
with a scribal copy or copies, these editors frequently take it as their
responsibility to evaluate the evidence (on the basis of their specialized
knowledge of the author, his time, and the textual history of the work) and
then to choose and emend a copy-text so as to obtain a maximum number
of authorial readings and characteristics and a minimum number of
nonauthorial ones.[108] The CEAA
editions of works intended for publication have taken this approach, on the
ground that more is to be gained by encouraging a qualified editor to apply
what judgment and sensitivity he has to the problem of determining the
author's intended text than by requiring him to reproduce the text present
in a particular surviving document. Some mistakes are bound to
result, but in general a text produced in this way is likely to come closer
to what the author intended than a single documentary text could possibly
do. (An accompanying record of emendations and variant readings is
naturally important, so that the reader can reconstruct the copy-text and
reconsider the evidence for emending it.) Editors of letters and journals will
perhaps less frequently encounter similar situations, but when they do they
should remember that preparing a critical text of nonholograph materials is
not inconsistent with a policy of presenting a literal text of holograph
manuscripts. Rather, it is an intelligent way of recognizing that a
consistency of purpose may require different approaches for handling
different situations. The aim of an edition of a person's letters and journals
is to make available an accurate text
of what he wrote; that goal cannot be achieved as fully for nonholograph
documents as for holograph ones, but it is the editor's responsibility to
come as close as he can in either case.
[109]
When Peter Shaw claims that the NHPRC editions show more respect
for historical fact than do the CEAA editions, he fails to recognize that an
edition with a critical or "eclectic" text does not necessarily conceal
historical facts and that an edition of a single documentary text does not
necessarily reveal all relevant facts. Whether they do so or not depends on
their policies for recording textual data.[110] CEAA editions are required to
include
textual apparatuses which contain records of all editorial emendations as
well as several other categories of textual information;[111] most of the NHPRC editions, on
the
other hand, incorporate several kinds of silent emendations.[112] Readers of the former are able
to
reconstruct the original copy-texts and are in possession of much of the
textual evidence which the editor had at his disposal; readers of the latter
cannot reconstruct to the same
degree the details of the original documents and are not provided with
carefully defined categories of textual evidence on a systematic basis. The
CEAA editors fulfill an essential editorial obligation: they inform their
readers explicitly
of what textual information can and what cannot be found in their
pages.
[113] The truth is, therefore, that
the CEAA editions are actually more respectful of documentary fact, and
at the same time they recognize more fully that fidelity to a writer's
intention demands, under certain circumstances, an eclectic approach to the
documents. Comparing a CEAA edition of a novel with an NHPRC edition
of letters creates a false opposition; but when CEAA and NHPRC editions
of similar materials—two volumes of letters
[114] or two volumes of works
intended for
publication—are compared, the CEAA volumes characteristically
exhibit
a more profound understanding of the problems involved in textual study
and a greater responsibility in treating textual details. The NHPRC editors
have undeniably been successful in the nontextual aspects of their work, and
the CEAA editors could learn from them in regard to explanatory
annotation. But in
textual matters the CEAA editors are far in the lead.
This state of affairs is a depressing reminder of how little
communication sometimes exists between fields with overlapping interests.
In 1949, the year before the first volume of the Jefferson edition appeared,
Fredson Bowers commented on the importance of textual study for all fields
of endeavor:
No matter what the field of study, the basis lies in the analysis of the
records in printed or in manuscript form, frequently the ill-ordered and
incomplete records of the past. When factual or critical investigation is
made of these records, there must be—it seems to me—the
same care,
no matter what the field, in establishing the purity and accuracy of the
materials under examination,
which is perhaps just another way of saying that one must establish the text
on which one's far-reaching analysis is to be based.
[115]
In the twentieth century scholars of English literature—especially of
Elizabethan drama—have taken over from the Biblical scholars and
classicists as leaders in the development of textual theory and practice; and
in the last generation the editing of nineteenth-century American literature
has been a focal point in this continuing tradition. But the principles that
have been emerging are not limited in their applicability to the field of
literature. Students in all fields have occasion to work with written or
printed documents, and they all need to have the habit of mind which
inquires into the "purity and accuracy" of any document they consult. The
NHPRC volumes have been singled out here because they constitute a
prominent block of modern editions and can serve as an instructive
example: the difference between the way American statesmen and American
literary figures have recently been edited is a striking illustration of how
two closely related fields can approach the basic
scholarly task of establishing dependable texts in two very different ways,
one of which seems superficial and naïve in comparison to the other.
But history and literature are not the only fields that would mutually profit
from a more encompassing discussion of textual problems; many editorial
projects are now under way in philosophy and the sciences, and the
fundamental questions which editors must ask are the same in those fields
also. Editing is of course more than a matter of technique; a text can be
satisfactorily edited only by a person with a thorough understanding of the
content and historical and biographical setting of that text. Nevertheless,
there is a common ground for discussion among editors in all fields. The
time for closer communication of this kind is overdue; not only editors but
all who study the written heritage of the past will benefit from it.