"On first looking into ...":
The placing of the 'slips of paper' at the bottom of pages of
PI Part One: consequences of the anniversary edition
| This material presents some
thoughts about the new edition of Wittgenstein's Philosophical
Investigations -- and, implicitly, on the nature of the original
edition - in respect of those comments 'below the line' in PI
Part One. Do they still sit happily when the work is repaginated?
Or has something changed? Can the original intention to treat
them as loosely associated with the material 'above the line'
be maintained? Can we learn anything about the status
of these remarks by reconsidering them in context? |
In their "Editors' Note" to the original edition
of Philosophical Investigations, Anscome and Rhees explain
the passages in question thus:
The passages printed beneath a line at the foot of some pages
were written on slips which Wittgenstein had cut from other writings
and inserted at these pages, without further indication of where
they were to come in.
For the 50th Anniversary Commemorative edition of Philosophical
Investigations, this passage was simply reprinted. However,
the repagination of that edition had meant that some new decisions
had been made in respect of these passages.
Three features from this note concern us here:
(a) It is unclear whether each 'below-the-line' passage is
one slip or more -- it seems they were regularly more, but this
is not clear here (and no consistent policy is adopted in the
printing).
(b) The expression "these pages" makes it seem that
some fairly specific location was obvious or implied [[What do
we know of LW's plan? Was there some logic to the moving? --
compare B&H's attempt to see where passages might 'come in'.]]
(c) The expression "where they were to come in"
suggests that only (and exactly) inserting the passages
was envisaged; was this something the editors knew? (Compare
B&H p. 152 below.)
The status, and the placing, of these remarks was always contestable.
At one extreme, we cannot be absolutely sure where they should
go, both because we lack the original text and because a slip
of paper (inserted into a typescript but with no other indications)
could be intended to be associated with the previous typed page
-- that is, it could be inserted behind -- or with the
following one (inserted in front). At best, we can only
assume that Wittgenstein had some uniform policy here: but why
should we make any such assumption? And, of course, the difference
between typed pages and type-set one raises further questions
about the appropriate location.
Nor can we be sure how to read these remarks. For we do not
know exactly for what these slips were intended. And we cannot
safely assume that all were meant to be treated the same way.
As Baker and Hacker (1980 p. 152 ) perceptively note[1]:
... [Wittgenstein's] intentions in inserting these slips into
the typescript of PI are not known. He may have meant
to add these remarks as they stood into the text [[Were this
so, it would make sense for us to look for, and speculate on,
plausible insertion-points, based on a reading of the
text]] .... Equally, he may have inserted them to remind
himself of modifications he intended to make to the 'final' text
(perhaps deletions as well as additions).Different slips may
have been inserted for different purposes and some for multiple
purposes.
For these reasons, then, Baker and Hacker continue with a
justified warning:
In ignorance of his intentions, we make a mistake in principle
if we make the interpretation of PI turn on the content of any
of these slips.
And this will be true even of those remarks where we have,
in "another hand" (presumably Geach's), indications
that these are indeed insertions (see below).
We should conclude that both location and purpose of these
passages was unclear. However, the fact that they had an 'official'
location meant that all the scholars who begin from the published
version were in the same position. In that way, there might be
thought a kind of 'custom-and-practice' with respect to the remarks.
And B&H (in one case, just H) have tracked down some earlier
locations for the remarks on these slips -- so we have a scholarly
basis from which to proceed (without committing ourselves to
the B&H 'reading' of the text).
Whatever has been made of these remarks in the past, the 50th
Anniversary Commemorative edition posed a new set of issues:
the repagination of the text of PI meant that the remarks would
not appear in exactly the same places; hence not in conjunction
with exactly the same passages. And the look of works on a page
is not always irrelevant [2]. Here, I want simply to point out
the new locations -- and to comment on the differences where
this seems apporopriate. As my guide to the previous connection
or consideration of the passages, I have drawn (as one example)
on the account offered by Baker and Hacker: hereafter, typically
referred to as "B&H" to identify this moment in
their thought. [[NOTE?: It will also be interesting to
note if Hacker's work since that volume (as represented
in the new edition of Volume one of the commentary) revises any
of the points recorded here: but, since they are merely examples,
even wre it to do so, that does not cast doubt on my points.
Still I have added comments specifically on that new edition
-- having special regard for any differences. Hacker certainly
records the new page locations, but (in almost all cases: contrast
no. 9 below)) the discussion of each slip-remark is in the same
place in the commentary as it was in the first edition.]]
A fuller discussion would say more about each of the eleven
remarks. I will simply note if the new locations would cast doubt
on the comments of Baker and Hacker; and if following the B&H
line would lead one to be critical of this new arrangement. For,
as we will see, my real argument is just that any change
of this sort has the capacity to support different readings of
the text -- B&H simply offer an accessible (and prominent)
example of one such 'reading'.
I do not suggest that all of the changes will have a bearing:
to know that we would need to be much clearer about these passages
than we are. But one can see that sometimes the change
makes no difference -- or there is no appreciable change. And
certainly one can only look to a plausible 'rational reconstruction'
here, on the basis that Wittgenstein was both consistent and
meticulous. (Hence, if any of these passages indicate a change
of mind to be accommodated, we will not be able to deploy them!)
Here are the locations of the remarks, indicating roughly
where each comes in the text:
1. Old: p. 11 (mid §23) New:
p. 9 (late mid §22)
[B&H (1980) p. 152 locate passage in B i §432=TS
228 §432]
The passage is clearly connected with §22, where we begin
a discussion of Frege on "assumption" [Annahme].
The 'slip' note itself can seem to endorse the idea of
a propositional radical. But B&H rightly criticise such a
reading which, in associating the passage with PI §23, suggests
that Wittgenstein is "developing an account of meaning incorporating
mood-operators and proposition-radicals" (B&H, 1980
p. 154); which, as they point out, is rejected by ideas in §23!
Such a reading may actually be made more difficult by the new
location for the 'slip' note, since it is now on the same page
as the comments on "assumption"-- and not on the same
page as §23.
The passage does recognise how the very same picture might
be used in different ways -- how it might amount to a an instruction
(of what to do or what not to, a description. And that does connect
with the multiplicy of uses of a particular string of words (mentioned
in §23), contrasted unfavourably with the view taken by
"the author of the Tractatus-Logico-Philosophicus".
[Hacker, 2005 p. 84: now notes that this was "a handwritten
slip in another hand" {presumably Geach's} with the instruction
"Insert at the end of §22". It is a briefer discussion!]
2. Old: p. 14 (mid §30)
New: p. 12 (early §30)
[B&H (1980) p. 208 locate passage in B i §522=TS
228 §522]
fairly unproblematic
Roughly, this passage is in the same place in both editions
-- the page bounded by the end of §28 and the beginning
of §30: and these refer to ostensive definition.
Moreover, the passage simply raises the same issues for translation
(especially of Erklärung) as these sections.
[Hacker, 2005 p. 102: again, reference to the "handwritten
instruction (not in W's hand ...) to insert this at the end of
§28". Otherwise, no change.]
3. Old: p. 18 (mid §38) New:
p. 16 (late §38)
[B&H (1980) p. 216 locate passages in B i §36=TS
228 §36; B i §223= TS 228 §223: B&H begin,
"It is unclear where this cutting belongs ..."]
One speculation of B&H (1980 p. 216): "... it is
possible that these remarks fit onto §35" -- if so,
they are very badly placed in the new edition, since §35
is on the previous page!
An alternative reconstruction (implied by B&H: see p.
218) might associate the point here with the varied uses of,
say, the standards metre, why I might at one time assert "that
bar is one metre long" in order to ascribe a property to
the bar and, on another occasion, say those same words to explain
to someone what a metre was. And it might be clear, I
imagine, how -- in the words of the marginal note (if we trust
it) -- a crucial superstition was lurking there: namely, the
superstition that such an utterance would have one sense (perhaps,
with Frege, seen through the conditions under which it would
be true). But, of course, that associates the remark with later
comments in PI, especially with §50.
Since this remark is cryptic, it is difficult to locate it
properly. At the least, its new location will mean that the first
reading B&H mention will be unlikely to suggest itself to
any reader.
[Hacker, 2005 p. 110: basically the same note, slightly abridged
-- so again associating the passage with §35, with the consequences
noted above.]
4. Old: p. 33 (after §70) New: p. 28 (mid §69)
[B&H (1980) p. 356 locate passage in B i §545=TS
228 §545=PG p. 119]
Although granting that "the point of this and its relation
to the text are obscure", B&H (1980 p. 357 speculate
that the passage "... is related primarily to §70":
in the new edition, §70 is on a different page -- so, as
above, the connection suggested by B&H would be unlikely
to suggest itself to a reader of the published text.
If one looks instead to its occurence in PG, there seem to
be two issues (both partly acknowledged by B&H): first picks
up the idea of "what I meant to say" -- that is, the
scope of my meaning or intending (compare PI §151, §178).
Thus, "... this coming to mind doesn't really consist in
a particular image's being present" (PG p. 119[a]). The
second seems more specific to games, and especially to their
relation to a specific set of rules: "... it could easily
be misleading to say boundaries had ... beem drawn around the
area of rules" (PG p. 119 [e]). The first idea suggests
a connection (or criss-crossing) not presently clealy visible;
Wittgenstein may have hoped to bring it nearer to the surface.
[Hacker, 2005 p. 160: slightly abbreviated, but with same
main point -- reinforcing the connection to §70.]
5. Old: p. 46 (mid §108) New: p. 39 (after §106)
[B&H (1980) p. 518 locate passage in B i §340=TS
228 §340 -- As often, Baker & Hacker (1980 p. 518) begin,
"It is unclear where this note belongs ..."]
One part of the confusion here (as B&H, 1980 p. 518) note,
is that this fragment originally followed one which had been
in PI §233 between para. (a) and para. (b), but had been
deleted [in TS 227]. Located here, it might have a connection
to the idea of "formal unity" in §108 (compare
B&H 1980 p. 520). If so, the new version obscures that fact,
in placing the note on the previous page.
[Hacker, 2005 p. 234: now "[t]he history of its location
illuminates matters" concerning the remark's purpose. This
seems to suggest a location in §103: If that were correct,
the new location would be preferrable -- in the original location,
§103 was on the previous page.]
6. Old: p. 53 (after §138) New: p. 46 (mid §139)
[B&H (1980) p. 579 locate passage in B i §82=TS 228
§82]
The suggestion: to see the note as "... a riposte to
the final sentence of §138, or an elaboration on §139(a)."
(B&H, 1980 p. 580). Since these are both on the same page,
that reading will still be of equal plausibility.
This example has an important difference from all the other
'slip' notes, in that (for the 50th Anniversary Commemorative
edition) it is attached by a footnote to a specific passage (at
the end of §137). And this is required by the other big
difference: that, on the same page, is a further 'slip' note
(discussed below). But the presence of the footnote involves
the editors specifying a connection between 'slip' note and text
which -- by their own lights -- they had been unable to accomplish
originally! As such, this must give a confusing impression, at
least in the absence of scholarly work explicitly making this
connection to §137 (and what kind of scholarly work could
possibly do this?). Moreover, the footnote to §137 will
be misleading if the B&H connection is correct (as it surely
is).
[Hacker, 2005 p. 296: substantially the same note.]
7. Old: p. 54 (after §139) New: p. 46 (mid §139)
[B&H (1980) p. 581 locate passages in (a) B i §363=TS
228 §363; (b) B i §335=TS §335]
There ae two notes here, designated (a) and (b): B&H (1980
p. 582) suggest that note (b) might be related either to §139[e]
or to §140. Both proposals are problematic: the second runs
foul of both editions, since (in both) §140 is on the next
page. At this point, it would be useful to know for sure if the
"(a)", "(b)" designations indicate that these
were originally separate slips of paper. And one might assume
this, since the slips originate in different manuscripts. If
so, there would have been some incentive (or at least a consistent
possibility) of putting note (b) onto the following page: that
is, old p. 55.
But then we must look back to the editorial 'policy' in respect
of note no. 3 above: there, passages from different typescript
locations are treated as a single remark.
XXXXXX
[Hacker, 2005 p. 299: substantially the same note, therefore
ignoring the footnote which suggests a strong connection to §139[c]
of both passages -- as above, this would be contrary to both
B&H and Hacker 'readings'.]
8. Old: p. 56 (mid §143) New: p. 48 (late §143)
[B&H (1980) p. 586 locate passage in B i §357=TS
228 §357]
unproblematic
B&H (1980 p. 586) comment: "This belongs with §142,
but only if further amplification is given". In both texts,
that is equally easily recognised, since both are bounded at
roughly the same places.
[Hacker, 2005 p. 303: now "a marginal note indicates
that this is a footnote to §142" -- if this were granted,
it need nolonger be a slip-passage at all! But why was it not
noted originally? It comes from a carbon copy of TS 227 but (if
PO p. 491 is to be believed) only one such carbon was in the
editors' hands initially. So perhaps this information comes from
the other. Against that idea, though, is the numbering: this
is TS 227a!]
9. Old: p. 59 (mid §151) New: p. 50 (after §150)
[B&H (1980) p. 630 locate passages in (a) B i §79=TS
228 §79; (b) B i §86=TS 228 §86]
unproblematic
Here again, the passages are treated as separate: (a) "further
elaborates §§148-9" (B&H, 1980 p. 630). This
is plausibly in both editions: the old version has §149
finishing at the top of the page, the new encorporates both remarks
in the body of the page. Note (b) "strikes at a related
target" (B&H, 1980 p. 631). If so, then it too should
be accommodated within these pages.
[Hacker, 2005 p. 320 for (a); p. 327 for (b): this is the
one place where the location of the commentary is moved: B&H
has comments on both notes after §149; Hacker puts (a) after
§148, and (b) after §149. However, the content of the
commemntary ios broadly similar.]
10. Old: p. 66 (mid §165) New: p. 56 (mid §165)
[B&H (1980) p. 644 locate passages in (a) in Wittgenstein's
hand on the slip; (b) B i §395=TS 228 §395 = PG p.
169]
fairly unproblematic
The published text, in both versions, is confusing in making
its two parts into one (apparent) paragraphs, despite their originating
in different typescript places. As such, we should have expected
to find it designated "(a)", "(b)", as earlier.
Nevertheless, the connection here is straightforward. The second
part is "... clearly associated with the first sentence
of §165": but it is also associated with BB p. 158,
and PI §531, where Wittgenstein recognises that "particular"
(and "peculiar") in this context might have what he
calls an intransitive use -- where, on this occasion,
there is nothing more to say.
[Hacker, 2005 p. 340: same content.]
11. Old: p. 147 (mid §552) New: p. 124 (after §548)
[Hacker {Vol 4} (1996) p. 361, p. 365 locate passage in ?????]
Note (a) "... arguably belongs together with PI §§547-9"
(Hacker, 1996 p. 361): this point is better seen in the old version,
where the note falls at the bottom of the page on which §549
finishes -- in the new version, §549 begins overleaf from
the note.
Although note (b) might also be seen as a continuation of
§549, "it might have been placed after §554"
(Hacker, 1996 p. 365) -- I don't know where this information
comes from! Certainly that would not be facilitated by the placing
in either of the published versions.
Thus, if the locations (or connections) suggested by B&H
for these slip-passages are at all plausible, the re-ordering
in the 50th Anniversary Commemorative edition will make such
connections harder to see for at least some of the passages (especially
numbers 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 11). Moreover, it is reasonable to
assume that other 'interpretations' of the nature and role of
the slip-passages would be similarly affected, if in different
ways or to different degrees. So my points holds even when the
specifics of the B&H ascriptions are put aside. And that
suggests that, in so far as the decision to re-paginate lacked
a specific rationale, the resultant changes to how some
of these passages are most readily seen -- or with which passages
they most readily connect -- seem to be just consequences of
the printer's convenience. But, of course, such changes could
not be justified without taking a view (perhaps more than one)
of the place and role of the slip-passages, contrary to the original
account of them.
Indeed, the fact of change here undermines one perfectly good
pragmatic reason for not making such changes: namely,
that (in the absence of a genuine rationale these as better locations)
the original arrangement had become the recognised starting point
for those hoping to make sense of PI; and of these remarks as
part of it. (Or, to put the point more crudely, readers could
treat the work simply as a text shared by commentators,
where this was de facto the location of these passages.)
But that argument is undermined once other arrangements of the
remarks exist: and especially one in which (as for numbers 6
and 7) a more specific connection of slip-passage to major
text now appears to be indicated, expressed by a footnote.
Notes
[1] It may be important to distinguish my use of Baker and
Hacker's scholarship from my (occasional) use of the reading
offered: the second is typically included just as an example.
[2] As Rhees pointed out, comparing the Tractatus unfavourably
with the Prototractatus [REF]
|
