5 Joshi Corruptions in "THE CALL OF CTHULHU"

[John Whelan]

Per Joshi, there are no surviving manuscripts or typescripts for "The
Call of Cthulhu". It was, however, published twice within the
author's lifetime, and these are only two available source texts.
They are:

(1) WEIRD TALES, Feb 1928 ("WT").
(2) the anthology BEWARE AFTER DARK, 1929 ("BAD").

A comparison of these texts shows neither one is based directly on the
other, but each is based on some earlier source text, from which it
varies in minor ways. There is no smoking gun to show which text best
reflects the author's wishes (the WT text is slightly longer, having
an extra sentence and some extra words missing from DARK, and also
features the Blackwood quote missing from DARK). Derleth decided that
WT was the better text, and the old Arkham House texts followed it
fairly faithfully. Since Derleth was HPL's friend, and knew him when
alive, and may have had access to information and sources now lost, I
am inclined to trust his judgment. WT also appears to me, in my own
judgment, to be the better text (but no doubt I will be accused of
bias).

The Joshi text is not faithful to either text, but is a combination of
both source texts, together with some innovations of his own. In the
text notes to THE DUNWICH HORROR ... (Arkham House 1984) Joshi claims
his text is based on WT, but elsewhere, in "Textual Problems in
Lovecraft", he scolds Derleth for not making use of BAD.

I will not list all variations I have noted, but will merely make a
short list of Joshi corruptions to this text that appear to have no
sane justification.

(1) SHEW ABUSE: Both source texts consistently use standard spelling
for the verb "show" and its derivatives (7 instances). Joshi insists
on replacing it with the 17th century anachronism "shew". In one
instance, most absurdly, he uses the word "shew" in what is supposed
to be a verbatim transcript of a modern newspaper article. I'll be
generous and only count the newspaper occurrence as a clear error; but
there is also no reason why the modern prosaic narrator (who is
neither an artist nor a poet, and does not even like artists and
poets) should be using this archaism.

(2) DIM AERAS: Both source texts say "dim eras". Joshi replaces
"eras" this with the 17th century archaic spelling "aeras" (which I
confusedly thought might be some kind of brass container for holding
statues). In "Textual Problems in Lovecraft", Joshi claims that
"aeras" is "rare in his fiction". This is evidently an
understatement. This is the ONLY occurrence of "aeras" in HPL's
fiction, and since both source texts say "eras", this sole, rare
instance is entirely Joshi's invention. Evidently, whenever a
"original manuscript" DOES exist, it always says "era(s)".

(3) BLOCKS OF THE TITANS: Where both source texts say "Cyclopean
cities and Titan blocks", Joshi changes it to "Cyclopean cities and
titan blocks". This alters the meaning, since "titan" just means
"really big", wheras "Titan" is meant to recall the Titans of myth
(primordial, godlike, inhuman, malevolent).

(4) GREEN IMPS WITH BLACK WINGS: Joshi has "Black Winged Ones" and
(much later) "green, bat-winged mocking imps of Tartarus". This is an
error, at least in this combination. It should either be "Black-
winged Ones" and later "green, bat-winged mocking imps of
Tartarus" (as in WT) or else "Black Winged Ones" and later "bat-winged
mocking imps of Tartarus" (as in BAD, omitting the word "green").
Regardless of which of the texts represents HPL's final wishes, it is
evident this is a coordinated change. If Joshi REALLY thinks BAD is
the better text (I don't) he should follow it consistently. As it is,
he creates an implied contradiction not present in either source text,
suggesting for the first time that these must be different creatures,
since one is black and the other green.

(5) Both source texts have the worshippers dance "in endless
bacchanale" (except that BAD capitalizes "Bacchanale"). Joshi wrongly
removes the "e" and has "in endless Bacchanal". However, a
"bacchanale" is a type of musical dance, and "in endless bacchanale"
has a similar meaning to the phrase "in endless waltz". (HPL also
uses "bacchanale" in "The Hound", and Joshi there retains the "e";
whereas HPL uses "bacchanal" to refer to a dancer or celebrant, as in
"The Music of Erich Zann").

I will be generous and not count the following as "corruptions",
though I find them curious:

6) Where both source texts have "...for Their mode of speech was
transmitted thought", Joshi instead has "...but Their mode of speech
was transmitted thought", which is a poor fit with context. This
error was not in the original Joshi edition (DUNWICH HORROR '84), but
has been in all editions since such as Penguin, the B&N text
(including the corrected version) and the online text at
hplovecraft.com

(7) Neither source text has a "subtitle". In both source texts, the
note identifying the source of the manuscript appears as a note at the
bottom of the first page or column of text. Formatting it as a
subtitle, with added capitalization, is a Joshi innovation. I mention
this because pro-Joshi agitators (including Joshi) have made a big
deal about the "missing subtitle" in non-Joshi editions. This is an
effective marketing ploy, because anyone who looks for a "subtitle" in
non-Joshi versions is unlikely to find it, since they will be looking
in the wrong place.

(8) Where WT had "These data...", BAD instead had "This data..."
Joshi follows BAD here, which does not really bother me, because it is
supported by one of the source texts (though not the one I consider
the better one), and I personally don't have any strong opinion it is
an error to say "this data". I mention this because of the bizarre
fact that Joshi, having insisted that HPL say "this data" (even though
he does not follow BAD consistently at all) then turns around and adds
a footnote in the Penguin editions where he calls it an error, and
expresses surprise at HPL's ignorance. With editors like this, who
needs enemies?

(9) Where WT (followed by the older Arkham House texts) had
"fetishism" and BAD had "fetichism", Joshi follows BAD. This
preserves BAD's spelling inconsistency since all texts (including BAD
and Joshi) refer to the idol as a "fetish" and not a "fetich". This
is odd, since Joshi is so gung-ho for standardization in other
contexts; demonstrating once again that Joshi has no consistent
editing policy other than a desire to make multiple changes to older
texts.

(10) If versimilitude is the goal, then the WT formatting of title
and text of the newspaper article (followed by old Arkham House texts)
is better than the formatting appearing in BAD (followed by Joshi).
For instance, WT's smaller paragraphs are clearly an attempt to mimic
newspaper style (they are much shorter than the regular WT
paragraphs). Also BAD's title formatting would be appropriate only
for a major headline (which this is not). The WT text also has one
interesting feature, unique to itself, that even the older Arkham
House texts did not follow: in the initial summary paragraph, all
lines after the first are indented. This is perhaps meant to
represent the idea of the text being indented to make room for the
photograph of the idol (though the indents are rather too short to
suggest this idea very effectively).

(11) Joshi does many other trivial things not supported by either
source texts, such as altered spellings ("connexion"), altered/added/
removed punctuation, altered word division, altered capitalization.
These do not affect meaning, and are perhaps not worth the effort to
list. I will mention, however, that if versimilitude is the goal,
there is no particular reason why this modern American narrator should
consistently favor British spelling. Both source texts (to varying
degrees) Americanized the spellings, and I see no reason to suppose
this was contrary to HPL's final artistic wishes (that it may have
been contrary to his natural habits is not to my mind particularly
relevant).