Disagreements and misunderstandings concerning the production and editing of Historical-Critical Editions (Scholarly Editions) of texts is becoming more common among editors. The Anglo-American and German editing techniques provide opposing views within this larger discussion of the aesthetic object and where the authority lies. Both German and Anglo-American editors agree that the reader engages in the meaning, style, and effect of a text; however, they differ in their views on aesthetic quality, authorial intent, and editing decisions

According to Anglo-American editors, editing improves a text thus enhancing the aesthetic quality. Two observations further explicate the Anglo-American view. The first observation states that editors must differentiate between their views of aesthetic preferences from the author’s views as “both authorial and personal notions of the work of art are, however, abstractions from the document--from the text on the page--and thus both are constructs enabled by critical judgment” (174). The second observation, which challenges certain trust and certainty issues, states that the “ differences are perceived between the textual artifacts and the aesthetic objects they represent, readers often act as if the textual artifacts are inaccurate or inadequate or corrupted or all three” (175). In other words, Anglo-American editors continue editing in hopes of improving the text. On the other hand, German editors do not attempt to provide the reader with a newer text that is a “close approximation to an author’s ‘aesthetic object ’” because, in many ways, there is no way of knowing an author’s intent. German editors rely on the author’s original text for aesthetic accuracy.

For readers, editors, and historians, where does authority reside: in the original text, in the edited text that contains an author’s intentions, or in a revised and edited critical edition? Three prime examples of editing, or lack thereof, elaborate on this idea of authority. Piracy enters into this discussion of publication and editing in that, oftentimes, when works were pirated the author was still alive. For example, Goethe, a German writer during the late eighteenth century, published the book The Sorrows of Young Werther . The book was pirated throughout Europe, and therefore, editions became more and more riddled with errors. Should these errors be changed now, centuries later? Even though Goethe was still writing when the faulty editions were published, he chose to leave the various editions grammatically incorrect. Another example, which does not pertain to piracy, is Herman Melville’s novel White Jacket , in which the line “soiled fish of the sea” is hailed as a brilliant metaphor by the critic F.O. Matthiessen (qtd. in Shillingsburg 178). However, when a bibliographer found two original, authorized editions that read “coiled fish of the sea,” editors and critics began to question the original text. What is the original text? This letter discrepancy not only affects the reading it affects critical scholarship of the text. The third crucial example concerning the editing of an aesthetic object pertains to William Faulkner’s famous book Go Down, Moses . The phrase “...the valley rose, bled a river ...” is known by many for its uniqueness(qtd. in Shillingsburg 180). Since the book’s publication, readers and critics have immortalized this phrase as a Faulknerian statement of brilliance. However, when historians and critics returned to the original typescript, which Faulkner typed himself, they discovered the line “...the valley rese,bled a river...,” which is believed to be a typo for “resembled.” Can readers, critics, and editors say, with substantial evidence, that resembled is what Faulkner intended? Resembled, though it makes sense, is not what Faulkner wrote. When he was still alive, Faulkner never objected to the printing of “ rose, bled.” The lines of distinction are blurred when discussing intention, poor editing, an author’s choice to leave errors in the text, and authority.

This discussion of the aesthetic object and editing boils down to issues surrounding authority. According to many, the Anglo-American method is to fix (edit) documents, and therefore, “American editors produce texts of mixed authority.” Oftentimes, Anglo-American editors create critical editions of works in an attempt to incorporate and show the errors and changes over the course of a texts evolution. In hindsight, the critical editions simply become another historical document that challenge and confuse the authority and aesthetic object.

Jerome McGann, who is known for editing Lord Byron’s work, is replacing his Anglo-American methods with German techniques. After editing Lord Byron’s works using the Anglo-American method, “he [McGann] has changed his mind about how editing should be done and declares that he would not have edited Byron now as he in fact did...the originally printed texts have a bibliographical significance and a historical impact that is to be respected and not edited away” (185). McGann rejects the Anglo-American methods of editing and has adopted a German-based ideal, and his work with the Rossetti Archive reveals this change in editing; however, one must note that Rossetti was a more precise reader and editor of his own work in comparison with Byron thus making McGann’s creation of the Rossetti edition less focused on editing minute errors and more focused on digitizing the aesthetic object. All in all, readers are in the hands of the printers and editors in this day and age as the original aesthetic object is challenged and deconstructed only to be reconstructed in a new, aesthetically pleasing, edited critical edition for many American readers.