Ecocriticism, Textual Criticism, and William Bartram's Travels
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Text and Trail: Ecocriticism, Textual Criticism, and William Bartram’s Travels Mark Sturges Interdisciplinary Literary Studies, Volume 14, Number 1, 2012, pp. 1-20 (Article) Published by Penn State University Press For additional information about this article https://muse.jhu.edu/article/467954 [ This content has been declared free to read by the pubisher during the COVID-19 pandemic. ] • Text and Trail: Ecocriticism, Textual Criticism, and William Bartram’s Travels mark sturges Long ago, Cheryll Glotfelty defined ecocriticism as “the study of the relationship between literature and the physical environment” (xviii). Ecocriticism, she wrote, emphasizes “relationships between things . between human culture and the physical world” (xx). In recent years, Glen Love has promoted a more practical ecocriticism, which he describes as “a discourse that aims to test its ideas against the workings of physical real- ity” (7). Today, this faith in the physical world continues to fuel ecocriti- cal scholarship, inspiring the same old song: we need a more empirical methodology, a new interdisciplinary approach. As a result, ecocritics often retreat into the refuge of science, a discipline that digs down to the bed- rock, embraces the natural facts, and promises the catharsis of contact. In this article, I’d like to suggest that an empirical methodology has long been within reach of literary critics. We don’t need to walk across campus to find it. It often lives right at home in our English departments, holed up in an archive, or secluded in a basement office. It goes by many names—textual editing, book history, bibliography, textual criticism—and it conducts some practical fieldwork of its own, collecting data, checking facts, and going to the source of literary production. This article has two parts. First, from a theoretical standpoint, I con- sider the relationship between ecocriticism and textual criticism. In the process, I expand on Michael Branch’s article “Saving All the Pieces” (2001), and his edition of early American nature writing, Reading the Roots (2004), both of which encourage ecocritics to recognize the value of textual interdisciplinary literary studies, Vol. 14, No. 1, 2012 Copyright © 2012 The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA ILS 14.1_01_Sturges.indd 1 04/02/12 1:02 PM 2 mark sturges editing. Branch defines textual editing as the scholarly work of discovering, recovering, and presenting previously unknown or unavailable documents. According to Branch, ecocritics have been slow to tackle editorial projects because we focus too narrowly on post-Thoreauvian nature writing, we overlook early and obscure texts, and we lack the requisite training. Branch envisions textual editing as a practical tool for broadening the canon of nature writing and legitimizing ecocritical discourse. Unlike Branch, I focus on the theoretical similarities between ecocriticism and textual editing, and I use the term textual criticism to refer more broadly to the arena of book history, bibliography, editorial procedure, and textual theory. Further, while Branch insists on the value of textual editing, he does not consider spe- cific methodologies, whereas I propose a hybrid methodology that merges ecocritical reading practices with the physical act of textual editing. By grafting these approaches together, I move toward a theory of ecotextual criticism. Second, I shift from theory to praxis by telling the story of a particu- lar work, William Bartram’s Travels (1791), and the editorial project that inspired both the Naturalist’s Edition of 1958 and the rediscovery of the Bartram Trail. In the process, I consider what happens when a scientist enters the field of textual editing. During more than twenty years of field- work, the biologist Francis Harper carried Bartram’s book into the woods and wetlands, tracking down its plants and places, in order to establish a link between the text and the physical world. Harper studied the place as part of the archive—its pretext, context, and paratext—and the book became his field guide; it brought him back to the land, even as he brought the land into the textual apparatus.1 Thus, Harper employed a practical, interdisciplinary methodology well before the invention of ecocriticism. To conclude, I argue that going to the source of literary production, physically tracking the events of a text, has long been a viable, promising, and neces- sary endeavor. Let us hope that it remains so. from black riders to green trackers Like ecocritics, textual critics—editors, bibliographers, and book histori- ans—value the material world. They study the physical book, its printing and production, its transmission and dissemination. While ecocritics debate the relationship between text, author, and the physical world, textual critics ponder the relationship between text, author, and the physical document. ILS 14.1_01_Sturges.indd 2 04/02/12 1:02 PM text and trail 3 Textual critics ask ecological questions; they identify and catalog speci- mens; they think about evolution. Their lexicon resembles ecocritical par- lance: production and reproduction, adaptation and evolution, index and appendix, genetic text. For textual critics, the book itself is a physical space; its production is ecological; it evolves; it rots and decays. But the book is also a human construct, a capitalist commodity, a material fetish. We often think of the book—especially a work of nature writing—as an ecotone, a marginal zone between author and environment, reader and place, culture and nature. Like ecocritics, textual critics are often accused of author wor- ship; they belong to author societies; they go on pilgrimage to the source of authorial experience. Despite these similarities, few textual critics have extended the study of the book beyond the boundaries of human culture to consider its ecological context, its environmental history. Meanwhile, few ecocritics have conducted studies of the physical book.2 Lawrence Buell once came close to merging the fields, but few (if any) took notice. Today, readers of The Environmental Imagination (1995), enam- ored of its ecocritical gospel, often overlook its debt to textual studies. Yet Buell leans heavily on the material evolution of Walden, the seven stages of the revision process as outlined in J. Lyndon Shanley’s study of the physi- cal manuscripts. Taking his cue from Shanley, Buell argues that authorship itself is an “ecological process” (173). Similarly, in “The Book of Nature and American Nature Writing” (1997), Barton Levi St. Armand observes that the physical book has roots in the natural world. Codex, the technical term for a bound volume, comes from the Latin for “tree trunk,” and liber, as in “library,” once referred to the inner bark of a tree. Both Buell and St. Armand have faith in books; they see books as links to the natural world. Others have objected to that faith. In The Practice of the Wild (1990), Gary Snyder writes: “Metaphors of ‘nature as books’ are not only inaccurate, they are pernicious. The world may be replete with signs, but it’s not a fixed text with archives of variora” (74–75). For Snyder, the physical book privi- leges Western culture and fails to represent the variability of the natural world. Similarly, in The Spell of the Sensuous (1996), David Abram argues that writing technology—the book itself—has historically severed the link between nature and culture. “Transfixed by our technologies,” he says, “we short-circuit the sensorial reciprocity between our breathing bodies and the bodily terrain” (267). In other words, the physical book shuts down direct experience; it breaks the bond between word and world, reader and place. Abram calls on nature writers to recover that bond, to write language back into the land.3 ILS 14.1_01_Sturges.indd 3 04/02/12 1:02 PM 4 mark sturges Similar debate has occurred in textual criticism. Since the 1980s, two principal camps have contended for dominance of the field, staging their own battle within the wider theory wars. On the one side, intended text theorists (or intentionalists) such as W. W. Greg, Fredson Bowers, and G. Thomas Tanselle have argued for an editorial approach that rescues authorial intent from the corruptions of printers and publishers. On the other side, social text theorists (or materialists) such as Jerome McGann and D. F. McKenzie have challenged the romantic notion of literary author- ship as solitary genius, insisting instead on the collaborative and cultural act of textual production. These camps have generally adopted competing approaches to editorial procedure. While intentionalists favor editorial dis- cretion in order to construct an eclectic text, materialists prefer the presen- tation of multiple and discrete versions of a work to approximate historical reality. At times, other approaches such as geneticism have attempted to complicate the debate, but the primary conflict has remained between the intentionalists and the materialists.4 Within this debate, the work of Jerome McGann has been especially influential. Over the years, in three major works—A Critique of Textual Criticism (1983), Black Riders (1993), and Radiant Textuality (2001)— McGann has challenged literary critics to discard the myth of solitary authorship and embrace instead a social concept of literary authority. The meaning of a work, McGann argues, depends largely on context and the bibliographical coding of the physical book. In other words, we should expand our vision of literary interpretation beyond the narrow scope of the word—the black riders on the page—to include the world as well: the mate- rial book, its visual rhetoric and social construction. Thus, McGann taps into a basic principle of poststructuralism, that literature is a product of the discursive network, but unlike Barthes and Foucault, McGann stresses the material nature of textuality. In Cheryl Glotfelty’s words, we might say that McGann “studies relationships between things . between human culture and the physical world” (xx). In this way, McGann alludes to the most basic principle of ecology, that everything is connected to everything else.