Analysis Of The Two Versions Of “A Description Of The Morning” By Johnathan Swift To Detect The Impact Of Editor’s Choices On A Text

Arguably, the choices that an editor makes can drastically alter a text. As readers, we must be conscious of the fact that the authority of the author can be challenged and, even, usurped by the decisions made by the editor, but also by numerous other factors. The differing contexts that two publications may have, the relationship between author and editor, the length of time between initial versions of a text and current ones and the politics of censorship and language which are subject to constant revision and alteration. To this end, I will interrogate two version of one poem, ‘A Description of the Morning’, by Johnathan Swift. One, in ‘The Tatler’, a 1709 journal edited by the essayist Richard Steele, and the other, an anthology of the poet’s work, the 1880 ‘English Poets Selection’ edited by Thomas Humphry Ward.

The poem is a morning scene of a maid sneaking out of her master’s bedroom and attempting to make it look like they never slept together while other servants rise and complete their tasks for the day. The humour is dry and satiric. A major feature of comparison between the two versions is that the 1880 version completely omits the two lines concerning ‘Betty’, sneaking out of her master’s chambers, using asterisks in place of the lines. Arguably this completely changes the poem from a dry observation of scandal amongst the mundane activities of an average morning to a placid morning scene. The editor of the 1880 scholarly collection may have found these lines too distasteful to include, whether as, it makes more sense in the context of The Tatler’s gossip magazine format and comedic tone of the editor, Richard Steele’s essays and aliases for himself and included writers. This raises an interesting point about the authority of the editor in changing the meaning of the text when addressing subject matter that may be considered inappropriate for widespread publication.

As mentioned; Swift was a close friend of Tatler editor Richard Steele and contributed the poem personally for inclusion in the serial’s first volume. The Poets Selection was an anthology edited by Thomas Humphry Ward with contributions from academics was printed more than a century later. This raises an interesting point about how the power of the editor may change when the author cannot object to any changes on their original material, a literal ‘death of the author’ can greatly expand the influence that an editor can have and the extent to which they can change the meaning of the text as they are not accountable to the author themselves. Adding to this, without a personal or working relationship to the author, the editor may lack insight insofar as knowing what the author’s intentions behind the text were or their desired means of presenting it. The anthology was produced without any influence from Swift himself. Also, it is important to note that the anthology version was accredited to Swift’s real name, contrary to the first publication which was under an alias.

Further distancing Swift from authorship of the poem was Steele’s decision to claim that he ‘stole’ the piece from diaries and did not seek permission to publish it. Probably with the intention of minimising Swift’s accountability if the poem was offensive to prospective readers. The formatting choices of both versions of the text are also revealing. Surrounding the 1709 text is an essay from Steele recounting sitting in a coffee shop with the author whose name he has obscured. Steele claims that the author (Swift) would not want the poem published for fear of imitators and makes an ironic joke that no one else should compose a poem about the morning after this publication. He takes this further by saying he ‘stole’ the poem from Swift’s manuscripts – as previously mentioned. This separation of author from text indicates that the content of the journal would have been scandalous, and that Swift may not want an open association with it, but it also displays a playfulness that speaks to the close relationship between editor and author.

Another clear difference in formatting between the two versions is the removal of parentheses from the 1709 to the 1880 versions. This could have been due to Steel copying directly from a draft Swift had offered, in the anthology version, they presumably did not have the original as a copy text and therefore made several decisions to omit the parentheses; potentially to create a clearer and more professional format. This makes the 1880 version easier to read but also because the quality of the print is better. Which could be attributed to not only the fact that it was produced more than a hundred years later but also because the intended audience and the availability of the text would have been more widespread as opposed to The Tatler being a society journal published with the names of those involved obscured and only circulated for a limited time. Since, in the Tatler edition, it is implied that the text came from Swift’s actual manuscript and could feasibly be since Steele had the benefit of knowing the poet personally; therefore, it could be assumed that the version in the Tatler is a copy text, directly from the manuscript of Swift himself or at least taken down from a draft he had submitted personally. To that end, 1880 could be considered eclectic as it is working from The Tatler and other subsequent editions but has reformatted the poem, presumably without the poet’s input as Swift was long deceased at this point.

Other than the obvious removal of parenthesis, there are notable changes within the language of the poem itself. For example, ‘street’ in the fourth line being replaced with ‘dirt’ in the 1880 version and ‘par’d’ for ‘pared’. This could be a reflection on the times with the apostrophe being dropped as a more standard English spelling developed and the ‘ed’ become more common practice. This is a reflection on the fact that it is a scholarly edition and so would have presumably employed the most standard spelling. However, there seems to be no reason to change ‘dirt’ to ‘street’ other than a personal preference of the editor or to fit more neatly into the chosen format. These editorial choices are bold and as previously mentioned, raise an interesting point about how far editing can change or even corrupt the meaning of a text. It also omits Steele’s essay piece surrounding the poem and just keeps the text itself followed by another piece by Swift, ‘Horace, Book IV. Ode 9 Address to Archbishop King’.

Overall, lending a more serious tone to the piece that was perhaps not intended by Swift when he initially proffered the poem to ‘The Tatler’. In conclusion, it is important not to understate the impact that an editor can have on the reception, intended audience and even content of the text itself. Using the two versions of Swift’s ‘A Description of the Morning’ as an example; it is clear to see that poetry can be given an entirely different meaning based on the context of a publication, how far removed the relationship of author to editor is and naturally occurring changes and standards in language, censorship and print quality over a significant period. Using the example of Swift, it is evident that the authority of an author over a text is something which varies wildly even from publication to publication of the same piece and is heavily influenced by the editorial hand at work.