|
On Editing Sri Aurobindo (Continued from the last issue)
The problem of editorial form was mentioned briefly at the end of the last instalment. Once an editor has collected every available version of a work, found and evaluated all variants, made necessary emendations, and in every other way established a critical text, how is he to present the result to the reader? The text he publishes will embody the totality of his work, but is the text alone enough? No doubt for the general reader it is. But the scholar, the researcher, the student interested in details will also want to know the number and nature of the versions, and how using them the critical text was established. This information must be provided. In addition the editor must explain how he has dealt with doubtful points, which no text of any length is free from. Making use of the data he has painstakingly unearthed, he has handled each problem in what seemed to his trained judgment to be the best way. But he must give his readers, and future editors, a chance to confirm or contradict his judgment. Most important, the editor has to announce all significant emendations he has made to the text. He has had good, even imperative reasons for altering readings found in the author's manuscripts or early editions, but he owes the reader a full report of what he has done. Editorial fashions change. Hopefully we have seen the last of the attitude that permitted an editor of Gray to rewrite the poet's letters according to his own ideas of taste and propriety, and leave no record that he had done so. A growing demand for scholastic precision and honesty, a recognition by editors that their role can only be subservient, and the broadening of the public mind have all contributed to a healthy trend towards accurate editions, editions that represent the author's and not the editor's intentions. But if textual critics are agreed on general principles, the fine points still cause debate. Which edition should be used for copy-text? Should punctuation and other accidentals be taken from the manuscript? How should variant readings be represented? Such matters are the subject of serious discussion in the literature of textual criticism. As in all disciplines there is an attempt to reach perfection. But is there such a thing as a "perfect" edition of a literary text, the one and only way in which it must be presented? One expert, after a lifetime of trying, decided finally that "the idea of a definitive text is an impossible dream, a tilting at windmills." He concluded that "there are many kinds of texts that serve many different uses and the editor alone has the right to choose the kind that he will produce, just so he announces his procedure in a preface and then sticks with thorough scholarly integrity to his own rules."1 Of course the editor will make his choice not according to the dictates of his fancy, but after evaluating all relevant factors. Especially he must consider the nature of his editing, the nature of the text and the nature of its readers. These things will determine where his text will lie on a scale ranging from the most complex scholarly presentations to the most unencumbered popular editions.
1 Robert E. Spiller. "The Impossible Dream: Adventures in Editing American Literary Texts". The Library Chronicle. Vol. 42, no. 2., p. 97. It is right that most works are printed in texts where no editorial work is visible. After all it is the author and not the editor that the reader is interested in. But if the text is of any importance and the amount of editorial work significant, the editor has an obligation to state clearly what he has done. This he may do in general terms in an introductory note, and for certain works this alone may be sufficient. If, however, he intends to produce a standard edition, emendations, variants, etc., must be presented in some sort of editorial apparatus. One possibility is to provide notes at the end of the book keyed to the text by page and line reference. Even reference marks (chapter or footnote numbers) can be omitted, leaving a "clear text" free from all editorial presence. This style is undoubtedly the best for works read for their own value by ordinary readers, as opposed to works read for their historical or scholarly interest by specialists. It is this type of presentation that will be adopted for most new editions of Sri Aurobindo's books. Sometimes a text, although destined for the ordinary reader, has involved too much editing for it to be presented in such a simple way. An example is From Man to Superman, the collection of Sri Aurobindo's manuscript writings published partly in this issue of Archives and Research. For this book a modified clear-text approach has been adopted. The editorial method is described at length in the introductory note to Notes on the Texts. In brief:
1. A clear-text transcription of the manuscript is printed. (Where two or more manuscripts exist, generally only the last one has been printed.) 2. Omitted words and words lost through mutilation are supplied within square brackets. 3. Editorial information inserted in the text is italicised and enclosed within square brackets. 4. Illegible words are indicated by elipsis points within square brackets. 5. Doubtful readings are indicated. 6. Footnotes are used where necessary to explain textual points, but never just to give information. 7. Extraneous words (e.g. "the the book") are silently removed. 8. Punctuation, capitalisation, etc. ("accidentals") are silently made to accord with the author's usual practice. 9. Necessary verbal emendations are made without special notification on the text page, but are listed along with the manuscript reading in a table keyed to the text.
This form of presentation provides a readable text but draws sufficient attention to textual difficulties. The very distraction of square brackets serves to remind the reader that the text was not thoroughly revised by the author, and so needed a certain amount of editorial care. Even this form of presentation is not sufficient for really difficult texts. It is possible, through the use of various editorial devices, to print an almost literal representation of a manuscript, including even cancelled words, mispellings, and so forth. This has been done in the appendix to Sri Aurobindo's Sonnets, and in certain examples in previous articles in this series. Such attention to detail is only called for when the editor wants to highlight the author's habits of composition and revision; outside of very scholarly contexts it would be unnecessarily cumbersome. There are however books intended for a relatively wide readership where a greater literalness, and therefore greater complexity of editorial format are justified. An example is Sri Aurobindo's Kalidasa, a new edition of which is in preparation. The fact that many of the articles in Kalidasa are taken from handwritten manuscripts, so that in places they require considerable editing, is only part of the justification; for these manuscripts are no more difficult than those of From Man to Superman. The decisive factor here is that Kalidasa is an early work of Sri Aurobindo, and many of its articles are of interest chiefly for the light they throw on his development as a writer and thinker. Few would turn to Kalidasa for guidance in life; its readers would tend to be of the type that would be interested in rather than distracted by literal transcription of text, explanatory footnotes, variant readings, etc. It is evident that there are many possible forms of editorial presentation. The editor must select the one that is best for the text he is working on. Once he has made his choice he has only to follow through systematically and scrupulously. If he is faithful to the word and. more important, to the spirit of his text, he will have served his proper function, which is to be a helpful but unobtrusive channel between a writer and his readers. |