|
The
Brownstone Journal >>
Issues >> Vol.
IX Spring 2000
The “Necessary Evil”: Annotating “The
Waste Land”
Kristina Kaverud (CAS XX) is a junior
in the University Professors Program, studying English Literature,
Religion, and Philosophy. She wishes to thank Professor Christopher
Ricks for his help with this paper.
To annotate or not to annotate? If yes, when to
annotate? No general answer is possible: each literary work,
in the context of the audience envisaged by the annotator, calls
for a specific solution. However, some principles of annotation
can be elucidated in order to indicate how to proceed.
The text under consideration here is T. S. Eliot's “The Waste
Land.” Let us start with an example of a note with dubious value.
Frank Kermode, one of the annotators whose practices will be
discussed, annotates the word “April” as “usually the month
of Easter or rebirth” (Kermode 97). Any American or English
reader, even a first-time reader, will already know that April
is the month of Easter as well as the month during which everything
begins blooming again (hence, rebirth). The meaning is implied
heavily in the poem as well:
April is the cruellest month, breeding
Lilacs out of the dead land, mixing
Memory and desire, stirring
Dull roots with spring rain.
(Eliot, “The Waste Land” lines l-4)
If Kermode was going to annotate this line, he could have chosen
something more useful to say about it rather than giving us
basic information.
When comparing different editions of annotations, considering
audience is essential. The annotations in a scholarly edition
will be vastly different from those in a simpler edition. Even
when discussing works that undoubtedly need extensive annotation,
there are many different styles and methods. Some cater to the
scholar, while others cater primarily to the conscientious reader.
It is necessary to judge the annotator's success based on the
criteria of his or her project; longer is not always better.
Many annotators provide a carefully composed introduction, stating
method and final intention. According to Batterstin, “Every
editor, it appears, is confident he knows what a proper note
should do, but few readers are satisfied with the results.”
Keeping in mind the author's intention as well as the expected
audience is essential. Starting with an analysis of Eliot's
own annotations to “The Waste Land” may help conceptualize a
thorough comparison between Frank Kermode's annotations and
B. C. Occam's.
What exactly is annotation? D. C. Greetham contends: “The annotator
must steer a very careful course between, on the one hand, confusing
the reader by giving too little information, and, on the other,
patronizing the reader by giving too much” (369). This rule
is particularly useful because it applies to all types of annotation,
whether the intention is to help the reader understand the work
or to help the reader refine a study of the work. “The enterprise
itself of explanatory annotation is often regarded as a necessary
evil (and not always even as a necessary one), provoking in
scholars feelings ranging from gratitude for the light a good
note can shed on the obscure places of a text to dismay at the
vanity and pedantry of editors who are thought to use such opportunities
to primp and strut in public” (Battestin). Methods of annotation
range from merely explaining obscurities to interpreting the
text for the reader. To Charles Moorman, for example, “a comprehensive,
carefully-prepared set of of explanatory notes is... the greatest
gift an editor can bestow upon a reader.” On the other hand,
to Samuel Schœnbaum, “[T]he editor who goes beyond the glossing
of words and phrases is not only professionally irresponsible
but morally reprehensible” (Battestin). Choosing between these
two vastly different methods of annotation can be difficult.
Most annotators recognize that annotations should be free of
critical interpretation, but few follow this principle in practice.
“[The annotator] is necessarily obtrusive in this role, and
he cannot be objective: every choice he makes as to when or
where not to supply a note is subjectively determined, governed
entirely by the quality of his own understanding of the author's
intention and by his estimation of the reader's need to be enlightened''
(Battestin). Southam explains, “It was my original intention
to keep the notes quite free of interpretation. But in some
cases our recognition of a source, an allusion or some other
kind of ‘fact’ is dependent upon interpretation. So, in the
event it has proved impossible to exclude this speculative element
from notes which are primarily facially” (Southam ix). It is
laudable that Southam admits to some subjectivity, but gives
reasons and particular cases where it will occur. He is not
trying to guard against criticism because subjectivity is necessary.
Southern does, however, contend that he has kept to the intention
to “avoid any direct critical discussion of Eliot's poetic methods”
(Southam ix). We can see that he draws a fine but distinct line
between interpretation and critical discussion, and he plans
to avoid the latter entirely.
Kermode’s intention is unclear because he does not provide us
with an introduction. However, it is possible to infer from
his annotations that Kermode also seeks to avoid interpretation
and criticism of Eliot’s style. Seldom, if ever, does he offer
direct critical interpretation of the text itself. Both authors
intend to keep subjective analysis and overt interpretation
at a minimum.
As far as Eliot's own annotations are concerned, he avoids criticism
or interpretation of his own work; instead, he offers source
material, references his own writing, and comparisons to other
parts of “The Waste Land.” The inclusions of notes offers some
admission that the poem is allusive and requires annotation,
even for the learned scholar whom Eliot expects his reader to
be. “Not surprisingly some early reviewers attacked The Waste
Land both for its obscurities and its notes” (Southam 28). For
example, Eliot offers source material in French, Latin, Italian,
and German without translation.
Eliot places the notes directly after the poem rather than at
the end of the published Collected Poems 1909-1962. This serves
several purposes. First, it multiplies their significance by
placing them where a reader is expected to encounter them during
the reading of the poem. Second, it affirms Eliot's recognition
that this poem needs annotation. Third, and perhaps unrelated
to this analysis, it allows Eliot to end his collection with
“A Dedication to My Wife,” not annotations.
In the introductory paragraph to the notes, Eliot makes one
distinction that is unclear and potentially unnecessary. “I
have used especially the two volumes Adonis, Attis, Osiris.
Anyone who is acquainted with these works will immediately recognise
in the poem certain references to vegetation ceremonies” (Eliot
70). First, to say that he uses the two volumes Adonis, Attis,
Osiris is unclear to a reader not familiar with The Golden Bough.
It would be better to make a clearer distinction as to what
the two titles are. Second, I ask for what type of reader is
this note intended? On one hand, the reader who is acquainted
with these works will, as Eliot says, immediately recognize
the reference. Therefore, the poet need not explicitly point
it out to him. On the other hand, one not acquainted with these
works may find the note helpful even though this is not the
reader whom Eliot is addressing.
Let's look at another stanza. In the endnote to line 46, Eliot
admits divergence from the exact constitution of the Tarot pack:
With a wicked pack of cards. Here, said she,
Is hour card, the drowned Phoenician Sailor.
(Those are pearls that were his eyes. Look)
Here is Belladonna, the Lady of the Rocks,
The lady of situations,
Here is the man with three staves, and here the Wheel,
And here is the one-eyed merchant, and this card,
Which is blank, is something he carries on his back,
Which I am forbidden to see. I do not find
The hanged man. Fear death by water.
(Eliot, “The Waste Land”, lines 46-55)
He does not claim to understand fully every single source that
he uses, and in fact, a standard Tarot pack has no blank card.
Southam tells us that “Eliot’s note to line 46–admitting to
an
unfamiliarity with the Tarot’s ‘exact constitution’ and to changing
it ‘to suit my own convenience’--encourages us to elucidate
the meaning of cards from the poem rather than spend time exploring
the interpretations in the Tarot guides” (Southam 149). This
diminishes the burden on the reader to know everything about
all sources to enjoy or understand the poem.
One note to “The Waste Land” which has received criticism is
the note to line 309 on St. Augustine’s Confessions.
To Carthage then I came
Burning burning burning burning
O Lord Thou pluckest me out
(Eliot, “The Waste Land”, lines 307-9)
Eliot tells the reader that “The collocation of these two representatives
of eastern and western asceticism as the culmination of this
part of the poem, is not an accident” (Eliot, Collected Poems
1909-1962). This note crosses the fine line between annotation
and interpretation. Eliot himself has established a principle
against interpretation: “the critic must not coerce, and he
must not make judgements of worse and better. He must simply
elucidate. The reader will form the correct judgment for himself”
(Southam 2). Eliot's note is unnecessary–the reader he addresses
would be able to recognize the collocation without his help.
This note illustrates one of the cases that Greetham advises
us to avoid, which is giving the reader too much information
and appearing to patronize him.
Now that we have seen the style and method of the first annotations
to “The Waste Land”, we can compare Kermode's annotations with
Southam’s. From the style of Kermode's edition, we can surmise
that he sees his audience consisting of recreational readers
or students unfamiliar with Eliot. As mentioned earlier, we
can only speculate his views on this matter since his introduction
does not include an explanation of principles. Judging from
the brief summary of Eliot's life and works, it appears that
this edition would be suitable even for the first time reader
of Eliot. The annotations are not as extensive as those in the
Southam edition, which must be taken into consideration when
comparing the two.
Southaln's notes are considerably longer than Kermode’s, which
implies a different reader. Additionally, Southam writes a book
consisting almost entirely of notes, admitting in the preface
that people will be “rightly suspicious of' him” (Southam ix).
He warns that so many notes might “load the reading of poetry
with a burden of fact and speculation” (Southam ix). However,
he justifies imposing this burden by saying that his notes are
a guide to be considered and then put aside, placing the emphasis
on the text of the poem, not a list of notes. Soutlmm suppotyd
his own rule by not including the poems in his edition. Had
he included the poems, he would have likely received harsh criticism
from the public–though not necessarily from scholars–for having
notes that were so much longer than the poem. However extensive
the information provided in excess of the essential may be,
the reader must find his “own understanding of the poem” (Southam
ix). Since the edition is comprised entirely of annotations,
the abundance of information is exactly what Southam's intended
reader seeks.
Kermode does not describe his principles in an introduction
to the edition. This makes commentary regarding Kernode's intentions,
accomplishments, and deficiencies difficult. We must base an
assessment of Kermode’s edition primarily on context. On the
other hand, Southam outlines the goal and purpose of his edition
in the introduction. He hopes to clarify but not necessarily
interpret the poems, writing:
No one, however learned, has ever claimed that Eliot’s poetry
makes easy reading.
This book is designed to elucidate one particular kind of difficulty–the
special
problems of meaning which face the reader immediately on the
very surface of the
poems, in Eliot's use of quotations and allusions, his reference
to many languages
and literatures, and his implication of a wide range of fact
and learning.
(Southam I )
Southam intends to help the reader understand the works, yet
not interpret the works for the reader. In the introduction,
he also summarizes the major works and authors who influenced
Eliot. “Alongside Dante, the domillant exemplars for Eliot were
James Joyce and Joseph Conrad” (Southam 21). Through this, he
is pointing out to the reader that some of Eliot’s sources are
more important than others, and that for a more complete understanding
of Eliot, the reader might explore these sources before all
else. Avoiding annotation based on biographical information,
Southam aims to refrain “from interpreting Eliot's poetry through
the details of his life; and, in practice, such details are
not needed for the understanding of his work” (Southam 29).
However, he adds that “there is some point in knowing that correspondences
do exist, that places and people in real life were carried through”
(Southam 20-30). Southam’s basic philosophy on annotation insists
on excluding extraneous material but allows a note “remote from
questions of meaning in the text but which touch[es] on issues
which I believe to be generally helpful in our understanding
of the inspiration and nature of Eliot's poetry (Southam 32).
He insists that “our real understanding of the poetry and of
the poet, begins where these notes end” (Southam 39). The annotator
once again encourages us to use the notes but then set them
aside in favor of detailed and conscientious study of the poem
itself.
Southam begins each separate set of annotations with an introduction.
In the introduction to the notes on “The Waste Land”, he narrates
the story of the Fisher King, which aids in understanding of
the poem. In addition, Southam’s method lets us know a source’s
response to Eliot's finished poem. For instance, Frazer was
“unable to return the compliment” to Eliot, and soon abandoned
the poem in complete bewilderment (Southam 129). These notes
are relevant enough to be included in his edition considering
the ambitious scale and length of his annotations. Southam’s
guiding principle seems to be to include all information that
is potentially helpful, relying on the reader to take only what
is needed or desired for understanding.
We assume that since Kermode republishes the poems along with
his notes, he projects a student or first time reader of' Eliot.
Having said this, a brief commentary on the presentation of
the poems themselves in Kermode’s edition is necessary. Kermode
does not print “The Waste Land” exactly as Eliot publishes it,
although the differences are admittedly minor. The first part
of each poem is different than in the original publication.
Not only is the title of the poem centered rather than justified
lo the left, but it is also pushed against the first line of
the poem with no space between. Kermode also arbitrarily indents
the first line of the poem. While this does not critically misrepresent
the poem, there is no clear reason given to change the spacing,
indentation, or justification of the poem. Kermode's choice
seems capricious in that he indents sections I, II, III, and
V of the poem but not section IV. Any change that the editor
makes should have a justifiable and well-documented reason,
which he fails to present; this inconsistency implies that he
did not realize his error. Kermode's edition places all parts
of the poem immediately following each other. Eliot, by contrast,
is careful to begin sections of some poems on the next page
instead of squeezing them together, irrespective of the amount
of space left empty; he employs this method specifically in
“The Waste Land”, “Ash-Wednesday”, and “Landscapes” but not
in “Portrait of a Lady” or “The Hollow Men.” This is obviously
a conscious choice on Eliot's part. To flow from one section
to another so quickly in a poem such as “The Waste Land'' is
overwhelming. We must concede though, that this decision may
not have been Kermode's, as the publishing house could have
flushed the sections together to conserve paper.
Another subtle inconsistency lies in Kermode's presentation
of Eliot's notes. Kermode republishes the original “Notes on
‘The Waste Land’” almost exactly as Eliot does, yet subtle differences
in italicized words, comma use, and quotation marks do creep
in. An editor should avoid careless errors. Moreover, while
Eliot includes the notes in the same size font as the text of
the poem. Kermode decreases font of the original notes by at
least a third. This diminishes their importance as compared
to Eliot’s edition.
Moving to an analysis of Kermode's annotations, an overall observation
is due. Although my criticism of Kermode's notes is harsh, the
notes are useful to certain readers. He provides information
to the reader, and my overt criticism does not imply that I
am entirely ungrateful. Yet particular aspects–such as the lack
of an introductory explanation and the inaccurate reproduction
of the poem itself–make it hard to be solely pleased with his
effort.
Kermode begins with a translation and source of the epigraph
and dedication on the title page of “The waste Land”, which
will be appreciated by many readers. He continues to translate
foreigns text as well as obscure place names, valuable in his
and similar annotations. However, he refers to all citations
with a numbered endnote rather than a line reference. It is
distracting to see small numbers when reading the poem, especially
when line numbers are already included. Since a reader must
turn to the back of the book for the notes anyway, it is preferable
to avoid using the numbered footnote altogether.
Southam, like Kermode, includes translations of notes or parts
of the poem in other languages, differing from Kermode in that
he generally includes the source of the translation. Kermode,
perhaps due to his belief that his audience will be average
students, omits the sources. Southam recognizes the importance
to some readers of which edition or translation a particular
line is from. In any case. his precision is admirable.
Southam's annotations often include not only a source, but also
the reason(s) Eliot was familiar with each source. For example,
he gives us other instances where Eliot quotes from the same
work, as well as context or dates for the original work. Though
it is not necessary to understand completely every source, we
should see why Eliot uses each source and the context in which
he frames it.
Southam also notes when something is seemingly insignificant.
For example, he remarks in the note to line 57 that Mrs Equitone
is “a synthetic constructed name” (Southam l5l). We can safely
assume that he thoroughly searches for a source, finding nothing.
Southam also gives the reader suggested interpretations or sources
that Eliot has agreed or disagreed with. For example, in a note
to line 69 on Stetson he tells us that “it has been suggested
that anyone then in Eliot's circle would have recognized this
as referring to Ezra Pound... Yet Eliot himself said that he
was not referring to anyone in particular” (Southam 153). Southam
phrases several existing interpretations in a careful way: the
reader is neither given the “correct” interpretation nor forced
to decide between them. In the introduction, Southam also discusses
“private” allusions. “I have dealt selectively with allusions
intended for a closed circle of Eliot’s family and friends and
which appear to add little or nothing to the meaning of the
poem” (Southam 12). Southam indicates that we should notice
these allusions but not weigh them too heavily. A separate category
for these “irrelevant” sources is set out in his introduction
(Southam l4).
Southam also admits when a note is possibly unhelpful, but then
gives justification for including it. For example, in a note
to line 126, he refers us to line four of “The Hollow Men”.
“This note does nothing to help The Waste Land reader” (Southam
162), yet these two lines might “be a hint from Eliot of the
connection between the two poems” (Southam l62). Southam does
not provide the same reference to “The Waste Land” in his annotations
“The Hollow Men”, though. If the similarity is striking or convincing,
perhaps he should include it in both sets of annotations.
Kennode often repeats the notes Eliot wrote. This does not make
sense, since Eliot’s own annotations are included in the same
edition, and since Kermode does not build on Eliot's original
annotation. Because the notes are so compact, a better use of
space would be to offer new information instead of relying on
repetition.
Southam, like Kermode, often repeats Eliot's annotations. This
is justified in Southam’s edition because he does not reproduce
the entire set of Eliot’s annotations. He often explains the
reference or translates the source for the reader, whereas Kermode
offers a translation or passage without further commentary.
For example, when Southam repeats the reference to the Bible
passages that Eliot mentions he explains the context of the
passage. He occasionally gives us an instance where another
author has used the same passage, allowing us to compare methods
of integration. However, this borders on critical commentary,
which Soulham has promised to avoid.
Kermode often gives references for place names that may be unfamiliar
to a reader. For example, he notes that the Hofgarten is a park
in Munich and that the Starnbergersee is a lake south of Munich.
He explains the reference to the Starnbergersee in terms of
Eliot’s familiarity with the place as well as the geographical
or cultural significance of the place itself. A note should
go further than just saying a place is “a park in Munich” (Kermode
97). In general–though not always–Kermode provides a reasonable
amount of information; he might be more consistent, though.
In another respect, he dœs not patronize the reader by saying
that Munich is a “large city in southern Germany”. He successfully
navigates the narrow path between providing too little or too
much information.
Southam rarely annotates words by giving them only a definition,
which is Kermode’s occasional practice. For example, Kermode
annotates the word “want” to mean “lack”. This is unnecessary,
as it is a common word found in even the most basic dictionary;
annotations should go beyond mere definition unless the word
is archaic or uncommon. Southam tells us in one note that Eliot
uses an archaic form of a word, and admits that there is currently
no evidence of a reason for Eliot’s use. “If it is to affect
an allusion, its source has yet to be identified” (Southam l89).
Southam also annotates the word “dugs” (line 228) to mean breasts,
but then carries his analysis further by telling us that the
word usually refers to the breasts of animals, “so, as spoken
by Tiresias, it carries overtones of self-disgust” (Southam
l73). This goes beyond a basic definition of the word, a characteristic
of well-written annotations.
Although Southam's annotations are rather complete, he misses
a few points. Since the notes are already very thorough in this
edition, it would only add to the quality of the work to include
every possibility. For example, in lines 257- 258 Eliot writes:
‘This music crept by me upon the waters’
And along the Strand, up Queen Victoria Street.
Southam notes that these are streets in London and gives us
details as to where they are and what the reference could mean.
However, Eliot might also be referring to a beach, as “Strand”
is the German word for beach or shore. This contention is supported
by two factors. First, Eliot uses several passages of German
in the poem. Second, the narrator is obviously sitting by water.
Eliot writes in the same section “The nymphs are departed” and
“By the waters of Leman I sat down and wept...” (lines 175 and
l82), both evidence that the speaker is near water. Even if
Eliot does not use the word “Strand” consciously, he was surely
aware of the possible double meaning.
Southam himself speaks of “unconscious” intentions, yet argues
that it is unnecessary (and impossible?) to understand every
unconscious intention that Eliot may have had (Southam 5-6).
Nevertheless, this is just the type of annotation that Southam
would include.
Southam offers clarification for a line, word, or section that
is potentially confusing. He tells us that line 346 “is printed
as two lines, but the line-numbering of the text, followed in
these notes, counts the words as a single line” (Southam 187).
This offers clarification to the reader even before confusion
is possible.
Criticizing either annotator for failure to include every conceivable
note is unfair. It would be impossible to bring in all details
and references in any edition. I value both styles of annotation
and realize that each may be helpful to different readers.
No two editors will annotate a text in the same way because
each, according to his
interests, competencies, and assumptions–according, indeed,
to his temperament and
sensibilities will respond to the text in different ways; what
to one may be obscure will
be clear to another; what to one seems an allusion is to another
the author's own turn of
phrase; what to one seems significant about a passage may seem
to another irrelevant.
(Battestin)
Kermode, on one hand, writes primarily for the student. His
lack of an introduction on styles of annotation indicates this;
he does not include an introduction because he does not intend
that his notes be studied by themselves, but rather read in
conjunction with the poem. He annotates by providing minimal
information. This indicates that he views his reader as one
encountering the poems for the first time, and he does not want
to burden the first-time reader with an overabundance of material.
Southam, on the other hand, writes notes with the idea that
they are a step to understanding Eliot. He views his reader
as one who has some previous experience with the poems but would
like to continue the study. “[This Guide] is meant for the reader
who has responded to Eliot’s poetry and is seeking the means
toward further knowledge” (Southam 2). Southam’s reason for
painstaking attention to detail and source material is clear.
“In attending so closely to Eliot's sources, we do so with the
knowledge that they were important to the poet himself” (Southam
x). However, “as a general rule interpretation is left to the
reader” (Southam 19). This echoes Eliot’s belief that only the
inclusion of facts that the reader is unlikely to know is necessary,
although sometimes “it has seemed sensible to depart from this
rule” (Southam 19). Despite these occasional departures, Southam
closely follows the systems of annotation that he establishes.
Battestin writes that, “annotation more nearly resembles an
art than a science; it cannot be completely regularized or reduced
to a single set of invariable principles... Like any other art,
this one has a purpose as well as certain strategies and techniques
for achieving that purpose” (Battestin). Both sets of annotations
follow Eliot's fundamental principles. Both sets are helpful,
although clearly intended for different types of readers. Despite
several inaccuracies in Kermode’s edition, it is useful to the
first time reader of Eliot. His annotations are particularly
helpful to a high school student who finds the poem too obscure
to understand on his own, yet only desires a basic understanding.
Southam’s notes would clearly be inappropriate in a book of
poetry such as the edition produced by Kermode. Southam hopes
to reach those who have some understanding of this difficult
poet and wish to know more. Neither edition is unhelpful or
inappropriate for the intended reader, but both raise intriguing
questions about the fine distinctions between annotation and
criticism. They also distinguish between mere oversights and
serious lack of conscientious, painstaking attention to detail
and consistency in following stated or tacit editorial principles.
TBJ
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Battestin, Martin C., "A Rationale of Literary Annotation:
The Example of Fielding's Novels." In Studies in Bibiliography.
Published online in partnership with the Electronic Text Center,
University of Virginia Library, Volume 34 (1981).
Eliot, Valerie. The Waste Land: A Facsimile and Transcript
of the Original Drafts Including the Annotationsof Ezra Pound.
Harcourt Brace & Company, San Diego, 1971.
Eliot, T.S. Collected Poems 1909-1962. Harcourt, Brace
& Company, New York, 1991.
Eliot, T.S. Kermode, Frank, editor. The Waste Land and
Other Poems. Penguin Books, New York, 1998.
Greetham, D.C. Textual Scholarship: An Introduction.
Garland Publishing, Inc., New York, 1994.
Southam, B.C. A Student's Guide to the Selected Poems of
T.S. Eliot. Faber & Faber, London, 1994.
|
|
