Landon

Landon (1981) - Charles Darwin : Some bibliographical problems and textual implications

• Landon descreve a bibliografia de Darwin e informa que ela (em conjunto com outros documento da Darwiniana) faz parte da coleção da Thomas Fisher Rare Book Collection na Biblioteca de Toronto.

•  Conta a história da Origem e descreve suas complexidades bibliográficas que, segundo ele, são resultantes do esquema de "milhares" de Murray.

• O autor detalha a história ainda mais complicada do Journal of Researches, incluindo sua relação com documentos de Darwin não publicados.

• Comentários importantes sobre questões de crítica textual aplicados a obra de Darwin:
• Given then the bibliographical complexities of the Journal of Researches and some indication of its textual history, what editorial principles ought to be applied when seeking to establish a scholarly, critical text? The principles promulgated by Greg, Bowers, Thorpe, and other textual scholars apply, in the main, to works of literature, and most of the examples cited to illustrate the effective application of these principles are drawn from the great corpus of English literature from the Renaissance to the present. Darwin was not a literary figure; he wrote no poems, plays, or novels. Yet the revisions he made in successive editions of his books have at least as much significance as the variant endings of Great Expectations or the successive and extensive revisions of Parnela. (p. 36).

• Para o autor, três perguntas são necessárias, baseadas no projeto de republicação da obra de John Milton:
• Which text best represents what Darwin wrote? For substantive variants, the I845 edition or, possibly, that of 1860 is to be preferred. For accidentals one could, I think, be satisfied with the 1845 second edition because of the obvious care with which it was revised. Even if changes in punctuation and spelling were made by compositors or house editors, they would have been given tacit approval by Darwin. On purely textual grounds then it would seem sensible to choose the I845 second edition, ideally in its original part form (we are dealing here with stereo plates), as copy-text for a critical edition. The editorial task would be to indicate and reproduce the textual changes from the first edition and appropriate passages from the Diary and Notebooks. Cognizance would have to be taken of variants introduced after 1845. This sounds simple but would be a considerable undertaking. (p. 38) [O autor ainda lembra que a questão das ilustrações deve ser considerada]

• Which text represents Darwin at his best? The Mill editors found that they could not definitively answer the question in a general sense, but could say that Mill's revisions resulted in successive texts, not in different versions; thus they concluded that they had no sufficient grounds for rejecting, as copy-text, the last edition known to have been revised by the author. The primary question concerning what represents most nearly what the author wrote is the most important. For Darwin, as for Mill, the question of substantive variants is easily answered. Any edition, whatever copy-text is chosen, must take account of and note substantives. It was the principle involving the treatment of accidentals which Greg emphasized and which has been much reiterated. Essentially that principle states that the further an editor departs from the author's manuscript the further he or she departs from the author's intention, and the decision of the Mill editors is here interesting and instructive. They reject the principle of first edition for accidentals on the grounds that the normalized spelling and punctuation of the revised editions, though admittedly the result of actions taken both by Mill and by the printer, are given sufficient authority by Mill's approval of them and that anomalies that might be discovered through detailed machine collation are, in Mill's case, relatively unimportant.[...] How might one apply this practical experience (here stated in a much over-simplified way) to Darwin's works and, specifically, to the Journal of Researches? First, the question of versions and texts. It is clear, I think, that there are essentially two published editions of the work, the 1839 first and the 1845 second, although the 1860 tenth thousand is, strictly speaking, the final definitive text. Further, these editions are texts of a version of a work, not separate versions. Careful collation would, of course, be necessary to establish what, if any, revisions might have been made in the 'thousands' between I845 and I882 since Darwin could, theoretically, have had a direct hand in them. We know, for instance, that the Postscript was added to the 1860 edition but was not incorporated into the main text until 1890. The Diary presents a different problem. Because Darwin did not intend it for publication in its entirety, but rather as a coherent account of the trip written for the benefit of his family, it fits into what Thorpe categorizes as a 'potential' version of the work." It was not published until l933 (and again in facsimile in 1979) and at that time became an 'actual' work of art. It does not, however, possess any 'authority,' as Darwin did not himself edit it. What the Diary does provide is a fruitful reference source for the annotation of a critical edition, including the clarification and expansion of specific passages. The notebooks, both those designated 'small' and the large notebooks, could serve the same function. [...] Which text represents Darwin at his best? As in the case of Mill this question is more difficult to answer in a positive way. Great interest may be evoked by the first edition of the Journal of Researches because it is closer in time to the events described and may retain a kind of freshness lost in subsequent editions. It was, on the other hand, composed for publication under the constraints imposed by the other volumes of Captain Fitzroy's Narrative, which have a tendency to aridness. The freshest account, of course, is contained in the Diary. The question is open and requires informed, subjective judgment.

• Which text did Darwin think best? It seems clear (and there is evidence in Darwin's correspondence to substantiate this) that Darwin preferred, as his final work, the editions of his books that he himself revised. There is also considerable evidence that he was a careful and meticulous reviser and proof-reader and the publishing system of Murray's encouraged this trait. The steady 'progression' of a text (dare I say 'evolution'?) is demonstrated by the history of Origin but seems true of the other books as well.

• O autor questiona até que ponto anotações são necessárias em uma reedição e deixa claro que o Journal atrai muito interesse devido a "evolução" do pensamento de Darwin quanto a sua teoria, especialmente quando alguns excertos são comparados com obras posteriores.

• Referência para depois: James Thorpe, Principles of Textual Criticism, 1972; Darwin, Journal of a Voyage in H.M.S. Beagle [Facsimile], Genesis Publications, 1979.