Textual Awareness: A Genetic Study of Late Manuscripts by Joyce, Proust, and Mann

Notes

Notes INTRODUCTION 1. See also Grésillon, “Hasards et nécessités” 51. 2. See Lernout, “‘Critique génétique’ und Philologie” 121–42. 3. See Grésillon, Éléments 187; and de Biasi, “Vers une science” 925–26. 4. See Espagne, “Les enjeux de la genèse” 118–19. See also Neefs, “La Critique génétique” 16. 5. Philip Cohen, Devils and Angels xiv. This enhanced self-awareness marks what Cohen calls a “crucial impasse” (xiv) and even a “paradigm shift” (“Textual Instability” xiii–xiv). 6. See also Ferrer, “Production.” 7. The Dutch translators of Finnegans Wake, Robbert-Jan Henkes and Erik Bindervoet, have included twenty-eight pages with 1,283 transmissional departures in the bilingual edition of Finnegans Wake (2002), 629–56. See also Van Hulle, “Genetic Criticism.” 8. Grésillon, Eléments 102. This typology was based on suggestions by Louis Hay in “Die dritte Dimension der Literatur.” 9. Signi‹cantly, Peter Shillingsburg regards Eco’s approach as “warmed up New Criticism” (Resisting Texts 191), whereas Antoine Compagnon regards the notion of intentio operis as a disguised form of the intentio auctoris (Démon 87). 10. Both concepts are further elaborated by Pierre-Marc de Biasi, who de‹nes exogenetics as that aspect of an author’s working process which is “focused on information stemming from a source exterior to the writing” (“Typology” 42), whereas endogenetics designates “the process by which the writer conceives of, elaborates, and trans‹gures pre-textual material, without recourse to outside documents or information, through simple reformulation or internal transformation of previous pre-textual data” (43–44). 11. As Daniel Ferrer points out, this action always implies the hope that the excerpted passages may be of use some time: “Even before the ‹rst plans and scenarios , every act of note-taking occurs with the expectation, however vague, that the note will somehow be used” (“Clementi’s Cap” 226). 159 CHAPTER 1 1. See Zeller, “Fünfzig” 5. 2. Zeller makes a clear distinction between a teleological school (to which Beißner belongs) and the versional editing applied by himself, Sattler, Allemann (in his edition of Celan’s poetry), and Martens and Dammann (in their edition of poems by Georg Heym). See Zeller, “L’édition génétique” 31–32. 3. Waltraud Hagen mentions four advantages of the ‹rst edition as a basis for the edited text: 1. The ‹rst edition is the result of the most intensive stage of the writing process. 2. Of all editions, the ‹rst is the one that least levels out the historical process. 3. The author’s decision to make her work leave the intimacy of her private of‹ce and show it (in its entirety) to the public is linked to the ‹rst edition, which gives it special signi‹cance. 4. The ‹rst edition usually has the most impact, and draws the most intense attention in reviews, etc. Still, Hagen argues this should not lead to a systematic preference for the ‹rst edition, for each situation is different, and each work therefore requires a corresponding approach (“Frühe Hand—späte Hand?” 119–20). 4. “I can never know another person’s intended meaning with certainty because I cannot get inside his head to compare the meaning he intends with the meaning I understand. . . . But this obvious fact should not be allowed to sanction the overly hasty conclusion that the author’s intended meaning is inaccessible and is therefore a useless object of interpretation. It is a logical mistake to confuse the impossibility of certainty in understanding with the impossibility of understanding ” (Hirsch, Validity 17). 5. “Authorial authorization indicates the period of time during which the text of a version represents the work for the author. Authorial authorization originates with the writing of the version in question by the author or undertaken under his or her instruction, and likewise with the authorially derived or approved publication or printing of such a version, and ends with its replacement by a new version of the text, or with the death of the author” (Scheibe, “Zum editorischen Problem des Textes” 29). CHAPTER 2 1. Rowe’s edition of Shakespeare’s works appeared in 1709, Pope’s in 1725, Theobald’s in 1733, Warburton’s in 1747, and Johnson’s in 1765. 2. See also Greetham, “Redrawing the Matrix” 14–15 n. 4. 3. In “Ulysses as a Postmodern Text” (1985) McGann writes, “After Gabler I begin to imagine an entirely different genetic text of Ulysses, one which would...