FREE BOOKS

Author's List




PREV.   NEXT  
|<   7   8   9   10   11   12   13   14   15   16   17   18   19   20   21   22   23   24   25   26   27   28   29   30   31  
32   33   34   35   36   37   38   39   40   41   42   43   44   45   46   47   48   49   50   51   52   53   54   55   56   >>   >|  
ones to which they belong." In 1884, Archbishop Trench edited the sonnets, with an admirable introductory "Essay on the History of the English Sonnet"; but, while Wordsworth gave no title to the 3rd and the 4th of the six, "composed as the Volume was going through the Press,"--either in his edition of 1838, 'or in any subsequent issue' of his Poems--his editor did so. He gave what are really excellent titles, but he does not tell us that they are his own! He calls them respectively 'The Thrush at Twilight', and 'The Thrush at Dawn'. Possibly Wordsworth would have approved of both of those titles: but, that they are not his, should have been indicated. I do not think it wise, from an editorial point of view, even to print in a "Chronological Table"--as Professor Dowden has done, in his admirable Aldine edition--titles which were not Wordsworth's, without some indication to that effect. But, in the case of Selections from Wordsworth--such as those of Mr. Hawes Turner, and Mr. A. J. Symington,--every one must feel that the editor should have informed his readers 'when' the title was Wordsworth's, and 'when' it was his own coinage. In the case of a much greater man--and one of Wordsworth's most illustrious successors in the great hierarchy of English poesy, Matthew Arnold--it may be asked why should he have put 'Margaret, or the Ruined Cottage', as the title of a poem written in 1795-7, when Wordsworth never once published it under that name? It was an extract from the first book of 'The Excursion'--written, it is true, in these early years,--but only issued as part of the latter poem, first published in 1814. The question of the number, the character, and the length of the Notes, which a wise editor should append to the works of a great poet, (or to any classic), is perhaps still 'sub judice'. My own opinion is that, in all editorial work, the notes should be illustrative rather than critical; and that they should only bring out those points, which the ordinary reader of the text would not readily understand, if the poems were not annotated. For this reason, topographical, historical, and antiquarian notes are almost essential. The Notes which Wordsworth himself wrote to his Poems, are of unequal length and merit. It was perhaps necessary for him to write--at all events it is easy to understand, and to sympathise with, his writing--the long note on the revered parson of the Duddon Valley, the Rev. Robert Walker, who wi
PREV.   NEXT  
|<   7   8   9   10   11   12   13   14   15   16   17   18   19   20   21   22   23   24   25   26   27   28   29   30   31  
32   33   34   35   36   37   38   39   40   41   42   43   44   45   46   47   48   49   50   51   52   53   54   55   56   >>   >|  



Top keywords:
Wordsworth
 
editor
 

titles

 

understand

 

published

 

written

 

editorial

 

length

 

Thrush

 
edition

admirable
 

English

 

writing

 

issued

 

parson

 
revered
 

character

 

number

 
question
 

append


Duddon

 

Walker

 

Cottage

 

Robert

 
Excursion
 

Valley

 

extract

 

Ruined

 

readily

 

reader


ordinary
 
points
 
essential
 

historical

 

reason

 
antiquarian
 

annotated

 

unequal

 

opinion

 
sympathise

topographical

 
judice
 

events

 

critical

 

illustrative

 
classic
 
excellent
 
subsequent
 

approved

 
Possibly