Synthesized answer
The apparent contradiction that alterations were "slight and few" yet included "one rather large omission" can be reconciled by understanding the nature of editorial changes described in the passages. Editors often make cuts for space or time necessities [Passage 2]. While these cuts might be numerous and small, an "omission" could refer to a single, significant section that is removed, even if other minor changes are minimal. For instance, one passage mentions an omitted "account of the quarrel between Sir James South and Mr. Troughton" as "one rather large omission" [Passage 3]. This suggests that the editor may have made few, insignificant alterations alongside one substantial removal.
This situation reveals that the editor views their role as maintaining the journal's coherence and fit, even at the expense of the author's original content. The editor is responsible for "cutting and carving" to make articles fit the pages [Passage 2], and is obliged to "strike out" material at the last moment [Passage 2]. While a "judicious editor is not very free with his unus et alter pannus" [Passage 2], they do make alterations. The editor’s concern appears to be with the overall…
Synthesized from the book passages below. Chat with the book on Feynman for follow-up.
From the book
st do his best, but it may chance that the omission selected would take from the writer the power of owning the article. A few years ago, an able opponent of mine wrote to a journal some criticisms upon an article which he expressly attributed to me. I replied as if I were the writer, which, in a sense, I was. But if any one had required of me an unmodified 'Yes' or 'No' to the question whether I wrote the article, I must, of two falsehoods, have chosen 'No': for certain omissions, dictated by the necessities of space and time, would have amounted, had my signature been affixed, to a silent…
l; nay, if he be one of those—few, I daresay—who do not read their own articles, may never have been seen by him at all. Possibly, the insertion or omission would not have been made if the editor could have had one minute's conversation with his contributor. Sometimes it actually contradicts something which is allowed to remain in another part of the article; and sometimes, especially in the case of omission, it renders other parts of the article unintelligible. These are disadvantages of the system, and a judicious editor is not very free with his unus et alter pannus . Next, readers in…
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…
all remember the account of Adam which satirizes woman, but eulogizes her if every second and third line be transposed. As in: "Adam could find no solid peace When Eve was given him for a mate, Till he beheld a woman's face, Adam was in a happy state." If this had been the article, and a gallant editor had made the transpositions, the author could not with truth acknowledge. If the alteration were only an omitted adverb, or a few things of the sort, the author could not with truth deny. In all that comes between, every man must be his own casuist. I stared, when I was a boy, to hear grave…
cles appearing much as they are written. And there are two safety-valves; that is, when judicious persons come together. In the first place, the editor himself, when he has selected his contributor, feels that the contributor is likely to know his business better than an editor can teach him; in fact, it is on that principle that the selection is made. But he feels that he is more competent than the writer to judge questions of strength and of tone, especially when the general purpose of the journal is considered, of which the editor is the judge without appeal. An editor who meddles with…
More questions about this book
- Imagine you are explaining to a friend what the editor of 'A Budget of Paradoxes' found most challenging about preparing De Morgan's manuscript for publication. What was the central problem, and how did the editor attempt to balance preserving De Morgan's vision with making the work publishable?
- 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?
- 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?