 |
 |
I wonder if any member can help me to elucidate this little mystery any further - it relates to a textual change made in "Judson and the Empire" (Many Inventions, 1893), at some time during the last century. In my notes on "Judson", now to be found elsewhere on our site under NEW READER'S GUIDE, I commented as follows: "Page 333, line 4] Steamship/seamanship Here is another curiosity. The original, and texts up to at least 1918, have "steamship", but the 1949 edition has "seamanship". In ORG the editor wrote: One or two readers have asked if this was not a slip by the author for "seamanship". Admiral Brock's answer is emphatically "No", giving these reasons: a.. In 1890, the last "masted" battleships were just being reduced to reserve or being modernized. Cruisers lagged 5 to 10 years behind. The smaller gun vessels and gunboats were still slower, on the whole. Such a small warship as Judson's, so far afield without any sail power, was still enough of a novelty to be distinguished by the word "steamship". b.. A reflection on an officer's seamanship was in the same category as an accusation of cheating at cards or an affront to his wife. The Admiral would have avoided any approach to it unless he was out to "draw blood". c.. The Admiral's implication clearly was that owing to his inaccurate compass, Judson must have had to rely on his convoy for navigation - not seamanship. d.. The Admiral is depicted throughout as a kindly character, well-disposed towards Judson, and one who would not unfairly attack Judson's navigation or seamanship." Subsequently (and before the above was published, and, one assumes, before it was written), the text was, indeed, changed to ".. resented this slur on his seamanship." It is not quite clear, that being so, why Admiral Brock persisted in claiming that "steamship" was the correct text, if (as one must assume) RK himself had made the revision. The present author would agree in general with the comments that Admiral Brock puts forward, except the idea that Griper was sufficient of a novelty to be referred to in any naval officer's mind as a "steamship". Judson would have thought of her as "my ship" tout court, or "my command", while the Admiral would have thought of her by name or type. Nor is it clear that the Admiral was intending a slur on anything or anyone. He could be thought to be making a sympathetic remark to Judson, indicating that he understands the difficulties, both in seamanship and navigation, he must have had in making such a passage in such a vessel. Judson replies "with a flush", rather on his guard: admirals are not notorious for being sympathetic to junior lieutenants, and Judson could have taken the remark as a slur on his own ability, i.e., his seamanship (with which may be included navigational ability). It must also be said that, if his compasses were as unreliable as is suggested, even though Judson considered that he had "got the hang of most of the weaknesses", he was being somewhat irresponsible in apparently ploughing his own way to the Cape." The question I would like to resolve is: when was the change made? And, by implication at least, by whom? My own copies are a pocket edition of 1918 (the 'terminus ab quo') and a standard edition of 1949 (the 'terminus ad quem'). Lisa Lewis has remarked "I have a pocket edition of 1928 in which it's still "steamship". This raises the possibility that it was Carrie Kipling who corrected it to "seamanship" when preparing the Sussex edition, after which all Macmillan editions would have carried the correction.". So that puts forward the "ab quo" to 1928. Can anyone offer any advance on that please?