Text: Edgar Allan Poe, “Marginalia - Part 06” (comparative text)


∞∞∞∞∞∞∞


Texts Represented:

  • 1844-01 - Democratic Review (April 1846)
  • 1849-02 - pages from Democratic Review marked with changes in pencil (possibly 1846-1849) (only three changes marked, and a few notes that are mostly erased) (none of these changes are marked in ink)

∞∞∞∞∞∞∞


[page 268, full page:]

MARGINALIA.

[column 1:]

[[M155]]

IN general, our first impressions are the true ones — the chief difficulty is in making sure which are the first. In early youth we read a poem, for instance, and are enraptured with it. At manhood we are assured by our reason that we had no reason to be enraptured. But some years elapse, and we return to our primitive admiration, just as a matured judgment enables us precisely to see what and why we admired. Thus, as individuals, we think in cycles, and may, from the frequency or infrequency of our revolutions about the various thought-centres, form an accurate estimate of the advance of our thought toward maturity. It is really wonderful to observe how closely, in all the essentials of truth, the child-opinion coincides with that of the man proper — of the man at his best.

And as with individuals, so, perhaps, with mankind. When the world begins to return, frequently, to its first impressions, we shall then be warranted in looking for the millennium — or whatever it is: — we may safely take it for granted that we are attaining our maximum of wit, and of the happiness which is thence to ensue. The indications of such a return are, at present, like the visits of angels — but we have them now and then — in the case, for example, of credulity. The philosophic, of late days, are distinguished by that very facility in belief which was the characteristic of the illiterate half a century ago. Skepticism, in regard to apparent miracles, is not, as formerly, an evidence either of superior wisdom or knowledge. In a word, the wise now believe — yesterday they would not believe — and day before yesterday (in the time of Strabo for example) they {{1849-02: exclusively, }} believed, {{1844-01: exclusively, }} anything and everything: — here, then, is one of the indicative cycles completed — indicative of the world's approach to years of discretion. I mention Strabo merely as an exception to the rule of his epoch — (just as one, in a hurry for an illustration, [column 2:] might describe Mr. So and So to be as witty or as amiable as Mr. This and That is not[[)]] — for so rarely did men reject in Strabo's time, and so much more rarely did they err by rejection, that the skepticism of this philosopher must be regarded as one of the most remarkable anomalies on record.

——

[[M156]]

I cannot help believing, with Gosselin, that Hanno proceeded only so far as Cape Nun.

——

[[M157]]

The drugging system, in medical practice, seems to me but a modification of the idea of penance, which has haunted the world since its infancy — the idea that the voluntary endurance of pain is atonement for sin. In this, the primary phase of the folly, there is at least a show of rationality. Man {{1849-02: (it is assumed) }} offends the Deity; thus appears to arise a necessity for retribution, or, more strictly, a desire, on the part of Deity, to punish. The self-infliction of punishment, then, seemed to include at once an acknowledgment of error, zeal in anticipating the will of God, and expiation of the wrong. The thought, thus stated, however absurd, is not unnatural; but the principle being gradually left out of sight, mankind at length found itself possessed of the naked idea that, in general, the suffering of mankind is grateful to the Creator: — hence the Dervishes, the Simeons, the monastic hair-cloths and shoe-peas, the present Puritanism and cant about the “mortification of the flesh.” From this point the conceit {{1844-01: makes //1849-02: made }} another lapse; the fancy took root, that in the voluntary endurance of ill there existed, in the abstract, a tendency to good; and it was but in pursuance of this fancy, that, in sickness, remedies were selected in the ratio of their repulsiveness. How else shall we account for the fact, that in ninety-nine cases out of a hundred the articles of the Materia Medica are distasteful?

[[...]]

 


∞∞∞∞∞∞∞


Notes:

For an explanation of the formatting used in this comparative text, see editorial policies and methods. For the version with changes applied, see the full text.

Because these changes are made to the original printed pages, pagination has been retained. Only the portion with changes marked is reflected in the text shown. Although the original pages in the Democratic Review run 268-272, only page 268 is part of this collection. (The obverse page of 267 is the end of the article before Marginalia in this issue.)

The dating of the markings is speculative, with 1846 being based on the discovery of Astræa on December 8, 1845 and 1849 based on the fact that not mentioned is Hebe, discovered July 1, 1849. Neptune was discovered on September 23, 1846, which might account for the new number of objects, perhaps suggesting revisions of late 1846 or early 1849. Pollin states (Brevities, 1985, p. xliv) that the changes in ink are earlier than those in pencil. The assumption that all of the pencil changes and all of the ink changes were made only in two separate settings, and at only two separate times, appear to be wrong. One section in another installment is marked to be deleted in pencil, and “stet,” meaning to let stand, is given in the margin in ink. The ink notation would make no sense without the pencil marking having already been made. On the other hand, a new footnote was added originally in ink, and modified at a later date in pencil. Thus it seems almost certain that individual markings, in pencil or ink, were made at different times, even going back and forth in terms of the writing instrument used. Consequently, the precise timing of the entries is not possible beyond the broad range of 1845-1849.

For this item, Poe's primary change is to circle the word “exclusively” to mark it with “tr:” to indicate that it needs to be transposed, and to draw a line showing that it should be moved to preceed “believed.” Although the comma following “exclusively” is included in the circling, Poe presumably would have removed that bit of punctuation as extraneous in making the move of the word.

The indication to alter “makes” to “made” is faint and was not recorded by Pollin. He presumably worked from a photocopy that failed to reflect this additional change.

 

∞∞∞∞∞∞∞

[S:0 - JAS] - Edgar Allan Poe Society of Baltimore - Works - Tales - Marginalia - Part VI (comparative - DR)