Synthesized answer
The central problem the editor faced was that De Morgan had left the manuscript "avowedly imperfect" and "not quite in a fit condition for publication" [2][5]. The work was miscellaneous and discursive, with repetitions that would have been removed under the author's revision, and De Morgan had intended to amplify and rearrange its contents [2][3]. The editor also had to contend with the fact that the Budget was "in some degree a receptacle for the author's thoughts on any literary, scientific, or social question," making it difficult to complete with "due regard to editorial limitations" [2][5].
To balance preserving De Morgan's vision with making the work publishable, the editor made only "slight and few" alterations, mostly verbal corrections or transpositions for coherence, and "in no case has the meaning been in any degree modified or interfered with" [5]. Repetitions were allowed to remain because removing them would have "left a hiatus, not easy to fill up without damage to the author's meaning" [3]. One larger omission was made—an account of a quarrel between Sir James South and Mr. Troughton—with the explanation that it would be included later when the affair had passed…
Synthesized from the book passages below. Chat with the book on Feynman for follow-up.
From the book
character of the book be thought necessary, it may be found in the author's own words at page 281 of the second volume. The publication of the Budget could not have been delayed without lessening the interest attaching to the writer's thoughts upon questions of our own day. I trust that, incomplete as the work is compared with what it might have been, I shall not be held mistaken in giving it to the world. Rather let me hope that it will be welcomed as an old friend returning under great disadvantages, but bringing a pleasant remembrance of the amusement which its weekly appearance in the…
← A Budget of Paradoxes by Augustus De Morgan Introductory 1489-1599 → 134520 A Budget of Paradoxes — Introductory Augustus De Morgan PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION. (1872) edit It is not without hesitation that I have taken upon myself the editorship of a work left avowedly imperfect by the author, and, from its miscellaneous and discursive character, difficult of completion with due regard to editorial limitations by a less able hand. Had the author lived to carry out his purpose he would have looked through his Budget again, amplifying and probably rearranging some of its contents. He had…
o case has the meaning been in any degree modified or interfered with. One rather large omission must be mentioned here. It is an account of the quarrel between Sir James South and Mr. Troughton on the mounting, etc. of the equatorial telescope at Campden Hill. At some future time when the affair has passed entirely out of the memory of living Astronomers, the appreciative sketch, which is omitted in this edition of the Budget, will be an interesting piece of history and study of character. A very small portion of Mr. James Smith's circle-squaring has been left out, with a still smaller…
l difficulty of reference. Sophia De Morgan . 6 Merton Road, Primrose Hill . PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION. edit If Mrs. De Morgan felt called upon to confess her hesitation at taking upon herself the labor of editing these Paradoxes, much more should one who was born two generations later, who lives in another land and who was reared amid different influences, confess to the same feeling when undertaking to revise this curious medley. But when we consider the nature of the work, the fact that its present rarity deprives so many readers of the enjoyment of its delicious satire, and the…
esent volume contains more than the Athenæum Budget. Some of the additions formed a Supplement to the original articles. These supplementary paragraphs were, by the author, placed after those to which they respectively referred, being distinguished from the rest of the text by brackets. I have omitted these brackets as useless, except where they were needed to indicate subsequent writing. Another and a larger portion of the work consists of discussion of matters of contemporary interest, for the Budget was in some degree a receptacle for the author's thoughts on any literary, scientific, or…
More questions about this book
- De Morgan aimed to 'scrutinize and castigate' both 'heterodox ignorance' and later 'orthodox learning.' What do these two targets suggest about his underlying definition of a 'paradox,' and how might addressing both types of 'inconsistencies' shape the overall philosophical message of his work?
- The editor states that alterations were 'slight and few,' yet also mentions 'one rather large omission.' How can both these statements be true, and what does this apparent contradiction reveal about the editor's understanding of their role versus the integrity of the original text?
- If De Morgan had completed his intended second part, scrutinizing 'orthodox learning,' how might this addition have fundamentally altered the book's intellectual impact and its place within academic discourse, beyond just expanding its content?
- Given the 'miscellaneous and discursive character' of 'A Budget of Paradoxes,' described as a 'receptacle for the author's thoughts on any literary, scientific, or social question,' what does this unique structure suggest about the predominant methods or aims of intellectual inquiry during De Morgan's era?