In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

• Embedded Authorship: Thomas Carlyle, Ralph Waldo Emerson, and Nineteenth-Century “Transatlantic Bibliopoly”
• Tim Sommer (bio)

I. Transatlantic Circulation between the “Two Englands”

In 1870, Thomas Carlyle donated a large part of his private library to Harvard University in an effort to demonstrate his “gratitude to New England” for its encouraging reception of his writings over the previous three and a half decades.¹ Carlyle’s American friend and one-time de facto literary agent Ralph Waldo Emerson had emphatically urged that Harvard, his own alma mater, would be “the right beneficiary, as being the mother real or adoptive of a great number of” Carlyle’s “lovers & readers in America.”² The role of the intermediary in the scheme fell to Charles Eliot Norton, a fellow Harvard graduate and transatlantic man of letters who subsequently became the first editor of the Carlyle–Emerson correspondence. As a gesture at once material and diplomatic, the gift, Norton suggested, would further consolidate a “bond between the people of the two Englands.”³ Through this public recognition of the support of his American “lovers & readers,” Carlyle was paying back his debt in the form of books, the same currency in which he had originally incurred it. When the volumes from his shelves arrived in Cambridge, this transatlantic migration of material objects provided the concluding chapter to a long history of exchanges that had seen the circulation of manuscripts, proof sheets, individual copies, and whole cargoes of Carlyle’s and Emerson’s books between Britain and the United States. This sustained Anglo-American interaction had not only established a lasting bond between the two writers, but also contributed to the emergence of the interconnected print market of what Norton described as “the two Englands.”

While the study of transatlantic literary relations has burgeoned over the past two decades, only a fraction of the critical output this scholarship has [End Page 352] generated is concerned with such specifically book historical contexts and with tackling the archival evidence required to answer the questions they raise.⁴ Still largely dominated by a history of ideas approach, the field has for a long time “neglected the material exchanges of transatlantic culture” in favor of inquiries into transnational influences and conceptual transfer.⁵ A simultaneous flourishing of research in the history of the book has, on the other hand, yielded similarly few instances of scholarship devoted to topics that genuinely cut across the boundaries of national book markets and regionally specific print cultures.⁶ In a recent survey of the nexus between these two scholarly traditions, Emily Todd has accordingly called for new work that engages both paradigms at the same time. “Transatlantic studies needs book history,” she argues, just as much as the latter needs the former.⁷ A subfield in which the history of the book has already made a contribution to our understanding of transatlantic literary culture is the study of nineteenth-century practices and discourses of reprinting. Catalyzed by Meredith McGill’s pioneering American Literature and the Culture of Reprinting, 1834–1853 (2003), research in this area has retraced in rich historical detail the manifold “routes” that texts were traveling in a complex international system of book and periodical publishing.⁸ Described as subject to decontextualization, reformatting, and decentralized dissemination, writing here tends to take precedence over authors, who often figure as the hapless victims of impersonal market structures that extend far beyond single individuals. Where reprinting is read as a practice that “disrupted the connections of books as human transmissions and de-valued the author’s text,” publication emerges “as an independently signifying act”—independent, that is, from authors as historical agents and participants in the publishing process.⁹

Looking at the close collaboration between Carlyle and Emerson and recovering the extent of their involvement with the print market reveals a different picture of the place of authors in nineteenth-century reprint culture. Confronted with a vibrant transatlantic market environment in which their writings from the late 1830s onwards were increasingly targeted by unauthorized reprinters, the two entered the fray and took up the roles of agents and editors to reassert their intellectual, legal, and economic authority over their texts. The transatlantic culture of print in...

中文翻译：

---

嵌入式作者：Thomas Carlyle、Ralph Waldo Emerson 和 19 世纪“跨大西洋书目垄断”

代替摘要，这里是内容的简短摘录：

• 嵌入式作者：Thomas Carlyle、Ralph Waldo Emerson 和 19 世纪“跨大西洋书目垄断”
• 蒂姆·索默（生物）

一、“两英”跨大西洋循环

1870 年，托马斯·卡莱尔 (Thomas Carlyle) 将他私人图书馆的很大一部分捐赠给了哈佛大学，以表达他“对新英格兰的感激之情”，因为它在过去的三年半时间里对他的著作受到了令人鼓舞的接受。¹卡莱尔的美国朋友、曾经的事实上的文学经纪人拉尔夫·沃尔多·爱默生曾强调，他自己的母校哈佛将成为“正确的受益者，因为他是众多”卡莱尔的“情人”的亲生母亲或收养者。美国的读者。” ²该计划中的中间人的角色落到了查尔斯·艾略特·诺顿 (Charles Eliot Norton) 身上，他是哈佛毕业生、跨大西洋文人，后来成为卡莱尔与爱默生通信的第一任编辑。诺顿建议，作为一种既物质又外交的姿态，这份礼物将进一步巩固“两个英格兰人民之间的纽带”。³通过公开承认他的美国“爱人和读者”的支持，卡莱尔以书籍的形式偿还了他的债务，这是他最初产生的同一种货币。当他书架上的书到达剑桥时，这种物质对象的跨大西洋迁移为漫长的交流历史提供了结束篇章，见证了卡莱尔和爱默生书籍的手稿、校样、单册以及整批货物在英国之间的流通和美国。这种持续的英美互动不仅在两位作家之间建立了持久的联系，而且还促成了诺顿所说的“两个英格兰”的相互关联的印刷市场的出现。

虽然跨大西洋文学关系的研究在过去的二十年中蓬勃发展，但该奖学金[End Page 352]产生的关键成果中只有一小部分与此类特定的书籍历史背景有关，并涉及解决回答问题所需的档案证据他们提高。⁴该领域仍然主要受思想史方法的支配，长期以来“忽视了跨大西洋文化的物质交流”，而倾向于调查跨国影响和概念转移。⁵另一方面，书籍历史研究的蓬勃发展也产生了类似的少数学术案例，专门研究真正跨越国家图书市场和区域特定印刷文化界限的主题。⁶在最近对这两种学术传统之间的联系进行的一项调查中，Emily Todd 相应地呼吁开展同时涉及两种范式的新工作。“跨大西洋研究需要书史，”她认为，就像后者需要前者一样。⁷子场在书的历史有已经对我们理解跨大西洋文学文化做出贡献的是对 19 世纪再版实践和话语的研究。在 Meredith McGill 开创性的美国文学和重印文化，1834-1853 (2003) 的催化下，该领域的研究以丰富的历史细节追溯了文本在复杂的国际图书和期刊出版系统中传播的多条“路线”。⁸被描述为受去语境化、重新格式化和分散传播的影响，这里的写作往往优先于作者，他们经常被视为远远超出单个个人的非个人市场结构的不幸受害者。在重印被解读为“破坏作为人类传播的书籍的联系并贬低作者文本的价值”的做法时，出版出现“作为一种独立的意义行为”——独立的，即独立于作为历史代理人和参与者的作者出版过程。⁹

看看凯雷和艾默生之间的密切合作，以及恢复他们参与印刷市场的程度，揭示了作者在 19 世纪再版文化中的地位的不同画面。面对充满活力的跨大西洋市场环境，他们自 1830 年代后期以来的作品越来越多地成为未经授权的转载者的目标，两人加入了竞争并担任代理人和编辑的角色，以重申他们对其文本的知识、法律和经济权威. 跨大西洋的印刷文化在...