Commentary on Commentaries: Schulz of His Editors

In 1989 the author edited a volume of Schulz’s fiction for the series of “Biblioteka Narodowa.” He immediately sent a copy to Jerzy Ficowski who soon responded with a long letter of March 10, 1990, including detailed remarks and opinions about the book. In the present essay, Ficowski’s letter has been quoted in full. After many years, the author is ready to agree with most Ficowski’s observations, with one exception concerning a still undecided issue that is one of the most difficult tasks of the editor, namely the choice of words which must be explained in footnotes. Ficowski’s approach to this problem was more radical. He proposed that the editor’s commentary should be limited to the absolute minimum. Persuaded by his criticism, in the second edition of 1998 the essay’s author considerably reduced his comments and explanations. Today he would insist on keeping them intact. Any editor working for “Biblioteka Narodowa” must choose between two ridiculous extremes: on the one hand, he or she may be a meticulous exegete, copying the Dictionary of Words of Foreign Origin, on the other, an old-fashioned professor who believes that “every educated person” should know the cultures of antiquity like a graduate of an early twentieth-century classical grammar school. Moreover, the editor must remember that his or her work will serve readers for several decades in the course of which the knowledge of ancient cultures will decrease even more. Different principles must be followed in respect to critical editions of the A type, avoiding comments of the dictionary entry kind and explaining only rare regional variants of lexical items. This type must also take into consideration the needs of translators