"
The industrious labour of some editors in disinterring the trivial works
of great men is not a commendable industry.
The industrious labour of some editors in disinterring the trivial works
of great men is not a commendable industry.
William Wordsworth
When I told Wordsworth's successor in the Laureateship
that I had burned a copy of that poem, sent to me by one to whom it had
been confided, his delight was great. It is the chronicle of a revolting
crime, with nothing in the verse to warrant its publication. The only
curious thing about it is that Wordsworth wrote it. With this exception,
there is no reason why the fragments which he did not himself republish,
and others which he published but afterwards suppressed, should not now
be printed. The suppression of some of these by the poet himself is as
unaccountable, as is his omission of certain stanzas in the earlier
poems from their later versions. Even the Cambridge 'Installation Ode',
which is so feeble, will be reprinted. [16] 'The Glowworm', which only
appeared in the edition of 1807, will be republished in full. 'Andrew
Jones',--also suppressed after appearing in "Lyrical Ballads" of 1800,
1802, and 1805,--will be replaced, in like manner. The youthful 'School
Exercise' written at Hawkshead, the translation from the 'Georgics' of
Virgil, the poem addressed 'To the Queen' in 1846, will appear in their
chronological place in vol. viii. There are also a translation of some
French stanzas by Francis Wrangham on 'The Birth of Love'-a poem
entitled 'The Eagle and the Dove', which was privately printed in a
volume, consisting chiefly of French fragments, and called 'La petite
Chouannerie, ou Historie d'un College Breton sous l'Empire'--a sonnet on
the rebuilding of a church at Cardiff--an Election Squib written during
the Lowther and Brougham contest for the representation of the county of
Cumberland in 1818--some stanzas written in the Visitors' Book at the
Ferry, Windermere, and other fragments. Then, since Wordsworth published
some verses by his sister Dorothy in his own volumes, other unpublished
fragments by Miss Wordsworth may find a place in this edition. I do not
attach much importance, however, to the recovery of these unpublished
poems. The truth is, as Sir Henry Taylor--himself a poet and critic of
no mean order--remarked [17],
"In these days, when a great man's path to posterity is likely to be
more and more crowded, there is a tendency to create an obstruction,
in the desire to give an impulse. To gather about a man's work all the
details that can be found out about it is, in my opinion, to put a
drag upon it; and, as of the Works, so of the Life.
"
The industrious labour of some editors in disinterring the trivial works
of great men is not a commendable industry. All great writers have
occasionally written trifles--this is true even of Shakespeare--and if
they wished them to perish, why should we seek to resuscitate them?
Besides, this labour--whether due to the industry of admiring friends,
or to the ambition of the literary resurrectionist--is futile; because
the verdict of Time is sure, and posterity is certain to consign the
recovered trivialities to kindly oblivion. The question which should
invariably present itself to the editor of the fragments of a great
writer is, "_Can these bones live_? " If they cannot, they had better
never see the light. Indeed the only good reason for reprinting the
fragments which have been lost (because the author himself attached no
value to them), is that, in a complete collection of the works of a
great man, some of them may have a biographic or psychological value.
But have we any right to reproduce, from an antiquarian motive, what--in
a literary sense--is either trivial, or feeble, or sterile?
We must, however, distinguish between what is suitable for an edition
meant either to popularise an author, or to interpret him, and an
edition intended to bring together all that is worthy of preservation
for posterity. There is great truth in what Mr. Arnold has lately said
of Byron:
"I question whether by reading everything which he gives us, we are so
likely to acquire an admiring sense, even of his variety and
abundance, as by reading what he gives us at his happier moments.
Receive him absolutely without omission and compromise, follow his
whole outpouring, stanza by stanza, and line by line, from the very
commencement to the very end, and he is capable of being tiresome. "
[18]
This is quite true; nevertheless, English literature demands a complete
edition of all the works of Byron: and it may be safely predicted that,
for weightier reasons and with greater urgency, it will continue to call
for the collected works of Wordsworth.
It should also be noted that the fact of Wordsworth's having dictated to
Miss Fenwick (so late as 1843) a stanza from 'The Convict' in his note
to 'The Lament of Mary Queen of Scots' (1817), justifies the inclusion
of the whole of that (suppressed) poem in such an edition as this.
The fact that Wordsworth did not republish all his Poems, in his final
edition of 1849-50, is not conclusive evidence that he thought them
unworthy of preservation, and reproduction. It must be remembered that
'The Prelude' itself was a posthumous publication; and also that the
fragmentary canto of 'The Recluse', entitled "Home at Grasmere"--as well
as the other canto published in 1886, and entitled (most prosaically)
"Composed when a probability existed of our being obliged to quit Rydal
Mount as a residence"--were not published by the poet himself. I am of
opinion that his omission of the stanzas beginning:
Among all lovely things my Love had been,
and of the sonnet on his 'Voyage down the Rhine', was due to sheer
forgetfulness of their existence.
that I had burned a copy of that poem, sent to me by one to whom it had
been confided, his delight was great. It is the chronicle of a revolting
crime, with nothing in the verse to warrant its publication. The only
curious thing about it is that Wordsworth wrote it. With this exception,
there is no reason why the fragments which he did not himself republish,
and others which he published but afterwards suppressed, should not now
be printed. The suppression of some of these by the poet himself is as
unaccountable, as is his omission of certain stanzas in the earlier
poems from their later versions. Even the Cambridge 'Installation Ode',
which is so feeble, will be reprinted. [16] 'The Glowworm', which only
appeared in the edition of 1807, will be republished in full. 'Andrew
Jones',--also suppressed after appearing in "Lyrical Ballads" of 1800,
1802, and 1805,--will be replaced, in like manner. The youthful 'School
Exercise' written at Hawkshead, the translation from the 'Georgics' of
Virgil, the poem addressed 'To the Queen' in 1846, will appear in their
chronological place in vol. viii. There are also a translation of some
French stanzas by Francis Wrangham on 'The Birth of Love'-a poem
entitled 'The Eagle and the Dove', which was privately printed in a
volume, consisting chiefly of French fragments, and called 'La petite
Chouannerie, ou Historie d'un College Breton sous l'Empire'--a sonnet on
the rebuilding of a church at Cardiff--an Election Squib written during
the Lowther and Brougham contest for the representation of the county of
Cumberland in 1818--some stanzas written in the Visitors' Book at the
Ferry, Windermere, and other fragments. Then, since Wordsworth published
some verses by his sister Dorothy in his own volumes, other unpublished
fragments by Miss Wordsworth may find a place in this edition. I do not
attach much importance, however, to the recovery of these unpublished
poems. The truth is, as Sir Henry Taylor--himself a poet and critic of
no mean order--remarked [17],
"In these days, when a great man's path to posterity is likely to be
more and more crowded, there is a tendency to create an obstruction,
in the desire to give an impulse. To gather about a man's work all the
details that can be found out about it is, in my opinion, to put a
drag upon it; and, as of the Works, so of the Life.
"
The industrious labour of some editors in disinterring the trivial works
of great men is not a commendable industry. All great writers have
occasionally written trifles--this is true even of Shakespeare--and if
they wished them to perish, why should we seek to resuscitate them?
Besides, this labour--whether due to the industry of admiring friends,
or to the ambition of the literary resurrectionist--is futile; because
the verdict of Time is sure, and posterity is certain to consign the
recovered trivialities to kindly oblivion. The question which should
invariably present itself to the editor of the fragments of a great
writer is, "_Can these bones live_? " If they cannot, they had better
never see the light. Indeed the only good reason for reprinting the
fragments which have been lost (because the author himself attached no
value to them), is that, in a complete collection of the works of a
great man, some of them may have a biographic or psychological value.
But have we any right to reproduce, from an antiquarian motive, what--in
a literary sense--is either trivial, or feeble, or sterile?
We must, however, distinguish between what is suitable for an edition
meant either to popularise an author, or to interpret him, and an
edition intended to bring together all that is worthy of preservation
for posterity. There is great truth in what Mr. Arnold has lately said
of Byron:
"I question whether by reading everything which he gives us, we are so
likely to acquire an admiring sense, even of his variety and
abundance, as by reading what he gives us at his happier moments.
Receive him absolutely without omission and compromise, follow his
whole outpouring, stanza by stanza, and line by line, from the very
commencement to the very end, and he is capable of being tiresome. "
[18]
This is quite true; nevertheless, English literature demands a complete
edition of all the works of Byron: and it may be safely predicted that,
for weightier reasons and with greater urgency, it will continue to call
for the collected works of Wordsworth.
It should also be noted that the fact of Wordsworth's having dictated to
Miss Fenwick (so late as 1843) a stanza from 'The Convict' in his note
to 'The Lament of Mary Queen of Scots' (1817), justifies the inclusion
of the whole of that (suppressed) poem in such an edition as this.
The fact that Wordsworth did not republish all his Poems, in his final
edition of 1849-50, is not conclusive evidence that he thought them
unworthy of preservation, and reproduction. It must be remembered that
'The Prelude' itself was a posthumous publication; and also that the
fragmentary canto of 'The Recluse', entitled "Home at Grasmere"--as well
as the other canto published in 1886, and entitled (most prosaically)
"Composed when a probability existed of our being obliged to quit Rydal
Mount as a residence"--were not published by the poet himself. I am of
opinion that his omission of the stanzas beginning:
Among all lovely things my Love had been,
and of the sonnet on his 'Voyage down the Rhine', was due to sheer
forgetfulness of their existence.
