Richard Herne Shepherd (1840–95)
Shepherd compiled the first professional bibliography of
Ruskin,
Bibliography of Ruskin (1878–81).
He was among the early “far‐sighted professionals” who, in
John Carterʼs estimation, helped steer the trend in
Collecting of Modern Authors in the Late Nineteenth and Early Twentieth Centuries, since
he compiled many of the first important bibliographies of these writers for collectors
(
Carter, Taste and Technique in Book‐Collecting, 23;
see also
Sadleir, “Development of Bibliographical Study”, 149).
In addition to the
Ruskin bibliography,
Shepherd
compiled bibliographies of several other modern authors:
Dickens (
1880),
Thackeray (
1881),
Carlyle (
1881),
Swinburne (
1887),
Tennyson (
1896),
and
Coleridge (
1900), the last two published posthumously.
Although little more than handlists, rather than descriptive or analytical bibliographies in a present‐day sense,
Shepherdʼs publications aspired to exhaustiveness,
and his thoroughness led him to uncover early writing by
Ruskin and others that was then little known.
In addition to ferreting out modern authorsʼ early work for bibliographical description,
Shepherd edited a wide range of juvenilia and youthful writing for
publication. In
1866 and
1879 (2d ed.), he published
Tennysoniana,
which combines biographical narrative with extensive quotation in support of studying
“‘the growth of a Poetʼs mind’” (
Shepherd, Tennysoniana, v).
Justifying the volume as preserving “materials for such a study,” materials that might otherwise be allowed to “perish,”
Shepherd threads together commentary
with liberal quotation from
Tennysonʼs published early poetry,
starting with
Poems by Two Brothers (
1827) and the
Cambridge prize poem (
1829), and continuing with poetry associated with the death of
Arthur Hallam and with later poetry. In
1870 and again in
1875,
Shepherd
printed
Tennysonʼsʼs early
The Loverʼs Tale, which the poet had suppressed.
In
1872 (new ed.,
1878), he
reconstructed
Charles and
Mary Lambʼs
Poetry for Children, and, in
1878,
The Earlier Poems of Elizabeth Barrett Browning.
In the latter,
Shepherd typographically reproduced
Barrettʼs girlhood volume,
An Essay on Mind with Other Poems (
1826),
and he filled out the reprint with the miscellaneous poems found in
Barrettʼs Prometheus Bound volume of
1833.(
Shepherd
believed that
An Essay on Mind was
Barrettʼs earliest published volume, whereas it was in fact preceded in
1820 by
The Battle of Marathon.
Shepherd was correct, however, that the next volume to appear after
An Essay on Mind was
Prometheus Bound . . . and Miscellaneous Poems.)
Also in
1878,
Shepherd collected
The Early Poems of Henry Wadsworth Longfellow, and he included
Mooreʼs juvenilia, along with a
number of later fugitive pieces in
Prose and Verse . . . by Thomas Moore. In
1887 came
Thackerayʼs turn, with recovery of
Sultan Stork
and other early sketches, which
Shepherdʼs included in a republication of his bibliography of the novelist.
In
Shepherdʼs facsimile editions of modern authorsʼ works, the contents are dominated by juvenilia and youthful writing,
doubtless owing in part to the appeal that the rarity of such items posed to collectors, and the opportunity that these scarce items afforded to a publishing market eager to serve collectors
(see
Collecting of Modern Authors in the Late Nineteenth and Early Twentieth Centuries). The
publisher of
Shepherdʼs Lamb,
Longfellow, and
Blake editions,
Basil Montagu, was among the first to
cater to this collecting interest, listing first editions of
Tennyson for sale
as early as
1870
(
Carter, Taste and Technique in Book‐Collecting, 22). Living authors
were often indignant to find their earlier work resusitated, and both
Tennyson and
Robert Browning contested
Shepherdʼs publications as piracies.
Tennyson, who in
1862
had already sued a bookseller,
J. C. Hotten, for sale of a piracy,
Poems, 1830–1833,
compiled by
James Dykes Campbell (
1838–95)
(
Sinclair, “First Pirated Edition of Tennysonʼs Poems”),
was irritated by
Shepherdʼs Tennysoniana and in
1866 complained to
the publisher,
Basil Montagu that its publication was “against my desire,” having an “infinite dislike to the
sort of book about anyone”; and he accused the bookʼs scholarship of inaccuracy (letter of
14 May 1866,
in
Tennyson, Letters, 2: 436).
Later,
Tennyson drew the line when he learned that
Shepherd
had printed a transcript of the Laureateʼs early poem,
The Loverʼs Tale (composed
1827–28),
in
1870 and again in
1875. In
1875–76, the poet adopted legal proceedings and won an injunction against
Shepherdʼs pirating activities connected with the
Tale
and some other poems, although, on learning that
Shepherd was poor,
Tennyson
himself paid the court costs with which the defendant was charged
(
Paden, “Tennysonʼs The Loverʼs Tale , Shepherd, and Wise,”, 119–24;
as a legitimate publication, the text existed only as a scarce
1833 pamphlet,
originally printed by the poet at his own expense and for private circulation only,
Tennyson having decided to remove the poem from the manuscript of his
1832 Poems published by
Edward Moxon [ibid., pp. 112–13]).
While
Shepherd admitted his guilt and full responsibility for the
Tennyson piracy,
the episode points to a larger issue respecting the extent of writersʼ authority to control access to texts and their
varying states versus collectorsʼ desires to possess and study
scarce publications, authorized or otherwise. In
Tennysonʼs case, his objections appear to have
extended beyond a legitimate concern to protect an unpublished (if printed) poem
to a belief that authorial control was absolute, that an authorʼs revision or
suppression of a work obviated the publicʼs right to curiosity about
previous states of that work. Even scholarly examination of his influences provoked the poetʼs scorn and anxiety, as when he famously demeaned
John Churton Collins (
1848–1908) as a “Louse upon the Locks of Literature” for having published such scholarship
(
Thwaite, Edmund Gosse, 295–97;
Collinsʼs also compiled an edition of
Tennysonʼs revised and suppressed early poems,
Collins, Early Poems of Alfred Lord Tennyson).
Despite this intimidating reaction,
Shepherd remained undaunted in supplying “materials for . . . study” of “‘the growth of a Poetʼs mind’”,
a purpose that, he declared,
trumps both popular opinion of the value of such materials and authors’ authority over their dissemination (when there is no legal obstacle in copyright):
“A poet himself, or the relations of a poet, may not . . . always be the best or the final judges of what should continue to hold a place in the collection of his writings”.
Even if the literary value of a given early work seems doubtful, “the study of [a poetʼs] mind and work should be left to the scholar to decide, not to the poet”
(
“Mrs. Browningʼs Earlier Poems”, 722).
With these latter, defiant remarks,
Shepherd renewed his cause in the face of opposition by
Robert Browning.
In
1876,
only months after
Tennyson won his suit against
Shepherd for pirating
The Loverʼs Tale,
Browning appealed to the editors of the
Athenaeum to take his part by
opposing the announced publication of another of
Shepherdʼs reprints,
The Earlier Poems of Elizabeth Barrett Browning, 1826–1833.
(
Browningʼs grudge, besides being driven by the hostility, which he shared with
Tennyson, to what poets deemed to be piracies of their work,
may have been intensified by
Browningʼs chagrin that it was his copy of the original
1833 pamphlet
of
The Loverʼs Tale that was sold in
1870 to
Shepherdʼs
publisher,
B. M. Pickering, thereby supplying the copytext for the piracy
[
Paden, “Tennysonʼs The Loverʼs Tale, Shepherd, and Wise,”, 113].
Paden does not mention whether
Browning was aware of this connection. Another score that
Browning wished to settle with
Shepherd arose from the latter having stolen
a march on
Browningʼs publisher by releasing a portion of “Hervé Riel” obtained from an early draft of the poem
[
Honan, “Browningʼs Testimony”, 29].)
Browning later acknowledged in court that he incited the journalʼs attack on
Shepherd,
although he testified that he did not himself author the journalʼs squib and disclaimed knowledge of the writerʼs identity
(
Honan, “Browningʼs Testimony”, 28–29).
It must have been
Browning, however, who provided the journal with its key argument opposing the reprint—namely, that
Shepherd violated the wishes of the late poet,
Elizabeth Barrett Browning,
who had specifically suppressed the feature text of the proposed republication.
Barrettʼs 1833 translation of
Aeschylusʼs Prometheus Bound was effectively placed out of bounds,
the
Athenaeum maintained, when
Barrett Browning published a new translation of the play in
1850.
While the journal ventured an opinion that
Robert Browning had no legal remedy against
Shepherdʼs reprinting of his late wifeʼs publication,
the journal strongly asserted an ethical opprobrium in
Shepherdʼs taking the “liberty to defy the wishes of the dead, and to outrage the feelings of the living”
(
“Literary Gossip”,
25 November 1876, 690).
In
Shepherdʼs reply to this charge, relayed by the
Athenaeum in its
December 1876 issue,
the editor conceded republication of the earlier Aeschylus translation.
“It was never my intention”,
Shepherd declared—surely disingenuously, as the journal remarked—”to reproduce the earlier draught of the
version of the ‘
Prometheus’ (
1833) for which a better and more mature
translation was afterwards substituted”.
Shepherd refused, however, to abandon his right to reprint the original poems that, in the original
1833 volume, follow
the
Prometheus Bound translation. As already quoted,
Shepherd claimed the authority of the scholar over that of the poet and the poetʼs relations; and he persisted:
“The poems have been fully given to the world, and are now among the worldʼs possessions.
Poetical students will not allow them to die, however indifferent the general
public may be to them”
(
“Mrs. Browningʼs Earlier Poems”, 722).
While the
Athenaeum contested
Shepherdʼs right to the shorter poems as well,
and in the coming months repeatedly impugned his honesty, the journal was probably unjustified in attributing the editorʼs motives solely to greed.
In other instances,
Shepherd was not timid about upholding the claims of scholarship against the mere assertion of power by literary men with intimidating reputations.
For example, in the
later nineteenth-century revival of
William Blake, Shepherd was unique among editors
in his insistence on a “historical” (i.e., diplomatic) approach to the texts. In contrast, the Rossetti brothers,
William Michael and
Dante Gabriel, “practiced emendation” of
Blakeʼs texts that amounted to wholesale rewriting. They made free with the texts in the belief
that such an approach was justified by the view of
Blake as vatic, heroic, and individualistic,
a Carlylean representation of the poet advocated by the
Blake biographer,
Alexander Gilchrist (
1828–61).
In lonely opposition to this powerful current of opinion forming
Blakeʼs reputation,
Shepherd stood up for the integrity of the text over an assertion of control by any author, living or dead:
“
Mr. [D. G.] Rossetti (though sanctioned by Mr.
[Algernon] Swinburne) has no more right,”
Shepherd pronounced,
“to alter
William Blakeʼs poems than
Mr. [John Everett] Millais would have to paint out some obnoxious detail of medievalism in a work of Giotto or Cimabue”—
Shepherd
strategically turning the Pre-Raphaelitesʼ own historicist stance against them
(
Poems of William Blake, xiv; and see
Dorfman, Blake in the Nineteenth Century, 65–110).
When
The Earlier Poems of Elizabeth Barrett Browning, 1826–1833
appeared in late
1877 or early
1878, the reprint did omit
the
1833 translation of
Prometheus Bound. In the introduction to the edition,
Shepherd
justifies the omission in terms compliant with
Robert Browningʼs objections—namely, that
the translation had been “replaced by the authoress in later years by an entirely new version”. To this admission,
Shepherd adds the value judgment that
“to re‐produce the earlier crude attempt [at translation] or the girlish preface that
accompanied it” would not be “wise or desirable”.
Shepherd thus entangles himself in contradiction,
by referring to criteria of “crudeness” and “girlishness”, which justify suppression of some juvenilia,
while declaring that the other selections from
Prometheus Bound . . . and Miscellaneous Poems, which he does reprint,
are “in no sense immature, or unworthy of the genius of the writer”. At the same time,
the introduction contains a passage nearly identical to one that, in his December
1876 reply to the
Athenaeum a year earlier,
Shepherd
had pleaded in defense of the study of poetsʼ youthful writing:
“The ‘exquisite touch’ that ‘bides in the birth of things’ is peculiarly apparent in the bursting of bud and leaf of a new poetic genius.
The summer of its manifestation may have greater fervour, and richer pomp and majesty of foliage, but about its early spring there must always be a nameless and peculiar charm”
(
The Earlier Poems of Elizabeth Barrett Browning, 1826–1833, vii–viii;
and see
“Mrs. Browningʼs Earlier Poems”, 722). This florid metaphor,
in which
Shepherd manifestly retained his faith, is consistent with his declarations elsewhere of a mission to make available the juvenile materials
for studying the “growth of a poetʼs mind.” According to the metaphor, these materials do not consist in Wordsworthian spots of time
remembered from the youthʼs experience of nature; rather, the metaphor figures the precocious child genius
as nature,
and her or his early publications (or, presumably, manuscripts) as the material witness of this bursting into bud and leaf.
In
December 1877, the
Athenaeum carried a review of the
Barrett Browning reprint.
The writer has been identified as
Theodore Watts‐Dunton (
1832–1914;
W. M. Rossetti, Selected Letters, 374–75),
a solicitor turned man of letters, who became poetry critic for the journal, and who would later appoint himself caretaker of
Swinburne, in order to rescue that poetʼs mind from his infantile body, wrecked by alcoholism and self‐abuse.
In the review,
Watts‐Dunton tasks
Shepherd as a “booksellerʼs hack” who, “devoid” of “literary taste,”
“must be called a bibliographer, . . . by dint of that enormous patience which often accompanies a dearth of intelligence”,
and which makes him “really learned in editions and in variations of texts”
(
Unsigned review of The Earlier Poems of Elizabeth Barrett Browning, 765–66).
This contempt for the editor of reprinted early works and compiler of “variations of texts”,—a sneer detectable in the tone even of
Shepherdʼs newspaper obituary, which pronounced him “a great authority upon the various editions, with their additions and emendations, of the works”
of modern authors (
Unsigned obituary of Richard Herne Shepherd)—must have sprung from a culturally significant animus,
one that prompted
Watts‐Dunton to feel warranted in using such intemperate language.
As a solicitor,
Watts‐Dunton would have been interested in questions of copyright raised by the reprint.
(One wonders if he authored the journalʼs initial
1876 volley against the planned reprint, a paragraph informed by a legal opinion: “were it a question of tables or chairs,
Mr. Browning could defend the wishes of his wife; but in the case of poems,
our wise laws give him no remedy” [
“Literary Gossip” [25 November 1876], 690].
Watts‐Dunton would have been in a position to advise the journal, having joined the
Athenaeum staff only months earlier, in
July 1876
[
Hake and Compton-Rickett, Life and Letters of Theodore Watts-Dunton, 1: 237].)
Questions of copyright aside,
Watts‐Dunton uses a figure comparing
Shepherd to an “insect”, which echoes a characterization by
William Michael Rossetti,
and which suggests that the animus of these men arose less from outrage over legal violation
than from their indignation over what they perceived as
Shepherdʼs loss of professional caste.
Rossetti characterizes
Shepherd as a “vampire,”
the figure suggesting a parasitical feeding on the corpus of the author. The contempt appears to center in a perception of the reprint editor as violating the authorʼs integrity and possession of self.
Whatʼs worse, the reprint editor poses a particularly degrading, subordinate form of parasitical exploitation, since the editor works for a publisher.
Rossetti struggles to elaborate this figure for the editor of “early poems” and “forgotten works” in a way that pushes the editor sufficiently low in the food chain:
“To be oneʼs own vampire is an unenviable lot; to be somebody elseʼs vampire is a post to which only a torturous ambition could aspire”.
In another of
Rossettiʼs stretched analogies, the reprint editor combines the role of the “chiffonier” (i.e., ragpicker) with that of the “resurrection-man” (i.e., body snatcher)
(
“Literary Revivals”, 331;
Rossettiʼs identity as author of this review noted in
W. M. Rossetti, Selected Letters, 374–75).
In the hands of
Watts‐Dunton, this characterization of Shepherdʼs offense both descends into scurrilous abuse and is elevated to a challenge to Britainʼs national interests.
If
Shepherdʼs professed mission, according to his
1876 reply to the
Athenaeum,
was to serve the interests of “poetical students” regardless of the “indifferen[ce of] the general public,” or even of the opposition of the author and the authorʼs relations,
in order to publish comprehensive materials for studying the growth of the poetʼs mind
(
“Mrs. Browningʼs Earlier Poems”, 722),
then the nationʼs interests demand that the editor of modern authorsʼ juvenilia and other “literary revivals” be put down. Exposed as a “vampire” and blood‐sucking “insect,”
he must be denied autonomy, lest he exercise critical and creative authority over the writer, the writerʼs family, and the nation.
Thus,
Watts‐Dunton, apparently perceived his mission in the review as ostracizing
Shepherd, separating him from the “noble calling” of legitimate commerce with men of genius.
The reprint editor is relegated to the fringe of professional letters as a mere scavenger;
such a person “scans the book-stalls” for “some forgotten production, or some inchoate form of a known production of a famous writer,”
and then attaches himself to a publisher or bookseller willing to abandon “the dignity of a noble calling”
(“we wish to express our astonishment and regret that publishers
can be found for such undertakings as this [reprint of Barrett juvenilia] and ‘
Tennysoniana’“).
Such a pair as this fallen publisher and his hack, advancing the “precocious smartness” of juvenilia in place of poetic genius, deserves the contempt of the “man of genius”
(and even the “typical woman of poetic genius”). Any respectable author who is “about to print” and embody his genius in a printed book will do well to
“pause and consider before he imperils his privileges as an English gentleman” by succumbing to “caterers of this kind”
(
Unsigned review of The Earlier Poems of Elizabeth Barrett Browning, 765–66).
In
1879,
Shepherd successfully brought suit for libel against the
Athenaeum
citing the attacks on his character in reviews not only of the
Barrett Browning reprint
but also of his edition of
Charles and
Mary Lambʼs Poetry for Children,
a reprint that the journal characterized as a “catchpenny” affair, in which the editor allegedly made false claims for its origin of copytext
(
Unsigned review of Poetry for Children by Charles and Mary Lamb, 47).
(See
Collins, “Richard Herne Shepherd”,
which attributes
Shepherdʼs suit to the journalʼs “injurious review” of his reprint of the
Lambʼs poetry,
whereas
Honan, “Browningʼs Testimony”
says the case turned on the journalʼs notices of the
Barrett Browning reprint [p. 27n.].
Doubtless
Shepherd prevailed in his charge of libel given the cumulative effect of the
Athenaeumʼs reviews,
the
12 January 1878 notice
of the
Lamb reprint, in which the reviewer openly questions
Shepherdʼs honesty respecting the authenticity of his sources,
and the
14 September 1878 review of more “literary revivals” by
Shepherd, in which
W. M. Rossetti belittles the editor as a “vampire,”
having followed so soon on the heels of
Watts‐Duntonʼs 15 December 1877 review of the
Barrett Browning reprint.
In his reply to the
Athenaeumʼs charges against the Lamb reprint,
Shepherd blames the publisher,
B. M. Pickering, for misleading statements [
“Lambʼs ‘Poetry for Children’”, 89].)
In the course of the libel trial,
Robert Browning appeared as a witness for the defendant,
John Francis (
1838–1918), the editor of the
Athenaeum.
In his testimony,
Browning reverted to the
Athenaeumʼs initial (
25 November 1876) objections
to republication of
Barrett Browningʼs juvenilia, quoting remarks that perhaps he had himself originally dictated to the journal—namely,
that
Shepherdʼs reprint defied the personal wishes of “writers of eminence”, living and dead
(
“Literary Gossip”,
25 November 1876, 690).
Browning informed the court: “‘
Mrs. Browning would herself, had she been alive, have objected to the republication
of her earlier poems’”—not only the translation of
Prometheus Bound but also of “‘all her earlier poems’”; “‘she was only fourteen years old when she wrote some of them’”.
Browning was casting a net beyond even the contested shorter poems in the
1833 Prometheus volume, to guard the entirety of
Barrettʼs juvenilia,
his reference to the fourteen‐year‐old poet extending the ban backward to
Barrettʼs first published volume, which
Shepherd had overlooked—the
Battle of Marathon (
1820).
Therefore,
Browning urged,
the defendant was not “too strong”” in pronouncing
Shepherd a man who arrogated the “‘liberty to defy the wishes of the dead and to outrage the feelings of the living’”
(quotations in
Honan, “Browningʼs Testimony”, 28–29).
Awkwardly for
Browning, as
Shepherdʼs lawyer pointed out,
Browning had acted seemingly analogously to
Shepherd
in an
1852 edition of letters by
Percy Bysshe Shelley, published by
Moxon,
for which
Browning penned an introduction.
Interestingly,
Browning anticipated the comparison, and even offered to read aloud the entire essay, which he had brought with him to court—an offer
that was deflected with laughter. (
Browningʼs proposal seems less absurd when one realizes that, in
1879, only a few privileged collectors had access to the introduction,
the publisher,
Moxon, having destroyed most copies of the
1852 Letters of Percy Bysshe Shelley when the documents were revealed to be a forgery.
Browningʼs introduction became widely available only in
1881 when
F. J. Furnivall [
1825–1910] published it in the
Browning Societyʼs Papers,
and it became known by its now familiar title, the
Essay on Shelley.
See the editorial notes by Donald Smalley on
Browning,
Essay on Shelley, in
King et al., ed., Complete Works of Robert Browning, 5: 350.)
In the end
Browning seems
only to have helped the plaintiffʼs case by admitting not only that he failed to seek the permission of
Shelleyʼs living descendant before publishing the introduction,
but that he had even recognized the
Shelley letters as forgeries when he undertook the project
(quotations in
Honan, “Browningʼs Testimony”, 28–29, 30).
For
Browning scholars, the more significant issue presented by this episode is
Browningʼs confounding admission that he was aware that
Moxonʼs edition consisted of forgeries of
Shelleyʼs letters,
a testimony that scholars have attempted to explain in a more flattering light consistent with the poetʼs character. What is more to our purpose is the remark with which the rattled poet sought
to redirect the cross‐examination to his principle point in having carried the
Essay on Shelley into court. As
Browning explained:
“‘My essay was on the character of
Shelley,
and I referred to these poems [e.g., “Queen Mab”] as those of an immature boyhood”’
(
Honan, “Browningʼs Testimony”, 30).
For
Browning, the immaturity of the poet settles the debate a priori respecting the value of the poems,
just as
Watts‐Dunton in his review of
The Earlier Poems of Elizabeth Barrett Browning appeals to the “common‐sense” of the “judicious . . . British public”
in settling judgments of literary value of works that are likely to benefit the nation
(
Unsigned review of The Earlier Poems of Elizabeth Barrett Browning, 765).
By these “common-sense” standards, the poet maintains perpetual right over whatʼs in and whatʼs out, and
Shepherdʼs claims for the independent judgment of the critic are nowhere.
The
Athenaeum incessantly reminded readers of a phrase tossed off by
Shepherd in his
1876 reply to journal,
his remark that he undertook his reprints for use by “poetical students” whose purposes would “doubtless be
caviare” to “‘the general’”
(
“Mrs. Browningʼs Earlier Poems”, 722). Seizing on the apparent elitism of the remark,
Watts‐Dunton scoffed at a conception of the study of poetry that indulges “‘
caviare’ at the expense of all the common amenities of life”
(
Unsigned review of The Earlier Poems of Elizabeth Barrett Browning, 765).
In taking this common‐sense stance,
Browning avoided the implications of
Shepherdʼs cheeky quotation of the poet himself, when arguing for the value of early writing.
As testimonial to the “nameless and peculiar charm” to be discovered the “bursting of bud and leaf of a new poetic genius,”
Shepherd quotes
Browning on the “‘exquisite touch’ that ‘bides in the birth of things’”, a line from
Fifine at the Fair (
1872)
(
The Earlier Poems of Elizabeth Barrett Browning, 1826–1833, viii).
I have argued elsewhere that
Browning did eventually answer
Shepherd more thoughtfully about his opponentʼs appropriation from this poem,
which meditates on how the poetic spirit engages with the material world. Here it is necessary to drive at the main point concerning the reception of
Shepherdʼs poetics,
which defended the value of a poetʼs juvenile writing in understanding the growth of the modern poetʼs mind—albeit a poetics ever so slightly developed in
Shepherdʼs writing.
Although the Wordsworthian tropes making up this hypothesis would have been more than familiar to every cultivated British reader by mid‐century,
Shepherdʼs proposition of taking juvenilia seriously in the study of modern poetry provoked a furious reaction from the
Athenaeum that demands understanding.
Part of the disturbance appears owing to the recognition that, as already pointed out,
Shepherdʼs formulation is not quite Wordsworthian, in that the childʼs genius is not remembered and translated
through the poetʼs mature inscription of spots of time, but rather directly communicated to the observer by the child writer.
In the
Athenaeumʼs review of
Shepherdʼs edition of the
Lambʼs
Poetry for Children,
the writer dwells on
Wordsworthʼs paradigm of loss, which forms the “inexplicable”
but “impassable gulf” between “the adult mind and the mind of childhood”: “If it
was by a sudden leap that we left behind us the ‘heaven’ that ‘lies about us in
our infancy’—if we lost at one stoke all that sense of the wonderfulness of the
wonderful, the beauty of the beautiful—all that intense belief in the
personality of natural forces, all that close and tender intimacy with the lower
animals, which go to make up that ‘heaven’—the existence of the world of dull
dead darkness which has supplanted it would not be so inscrutable.” But despite the writerʼs mournfulness over the defectiveness of the adult mind that
“it is [only] from without, and not from within, that . . . those landscapes of childhood” are perceptible, and despite his Dickensian tirade against the modern
“stupid system of so‐called education” that deadens us by trampling on “the limitless
potentialities of happiness in children,” it is clear that the writer is unwilling to relinquish the paradigm of loss of childhood, since it sponsors
Wordsworthʼs
paradigm of recompense. The reviewer is consoled that the imaginative experience of literature in childhood forms an inalienable part of the psychological and spiritual self,
because this formation is overseen by a Wordsworthian “literature of power” that insists on the childʼs subordination:
“[I]t is impossible to calculate how enormous in moulding the mind is the power of infant literature.
It is not merely that what we read in childhood we never forget, but that it becomes part of our very being.” “Infant literature” means writing
for children by adults,
not writing
by children. The formation of the self, “our very being,” depends on a “literature of power” that guides but silences the child
(
Unsigned review of Poetry for Children by Charles and Mary Lamb, 48).
To
Watts‐Dunton, the “inscrutable” imagination of the child, that “nameless and peculiar charm,” is likely to produce only “precocious smartness,” if confronted directly in a childʼs writing,
and so he anathematizes the monstrosity of the precocious child writer in his review of
Barrett Browningʼs juvenilia.
He does, however, maintain a circumscribed place of sentiment for the dead child writer of promise,
drawing partly on the
Chatterton myth,
but also on the real examples of
Oliver Madox Brown (1855–74) and
Charles Jeremiah Wells (1800–1879).
In a bizarre reimagining of
Wordsworthʼs
“Intimations Ode”,
Watts‐Dunton admits how “facilities of early printing” may “be necessary to the full development
of a countryʼs literary potentialities,” by encouraging talent that would otherwise wither; “for . . . the violence of the [authorial] impulse subsides with the subsidence
of the hot enthusiasms of youth”, and if the impulse “is long kept in check by adverse circumstances, the interests of the world come thicker and thicker, till, at last, that energy which—had
the printing difficulty been early overcome—would have expressed itself in literature, is exhausted in other channels”
(
Unsigned review of The Earlier Poems of Elizabeth Barrett Browning, 765).
Watts‐Duntonʼs example of the child writer extinguished by circumstance is the erstwhile poet,
Charles Jeremiah Wells,
around whom the Pre‐Raphaelite circle had been constructing a myth of the neglected poet. In
1875,
Swinburne published an appreciation of
Wells,
in which he presents the writerʼs first publication, the
Stories after Nature (
1822) as neglected juvenilia, “written it is said in his earliest youth”,
although in fact
Wells published the stories in his early twenties.
Swinburne characterizes the child author of the stories in terms
similar to
Shepherdʼs figuration of the child writer as an enigma of nature: “The first publication of
Mr. Wells . . . has much of the charm
and something of the weakness natural to the first flight and the first note of a song‐bird, whose wings have yet to grow, and whose notes have yet to deepen;
yet in its first flutterings and twitterings there is a nameless grace, a beauty indefinable, which belongs only to the infancy of genius as it belongs only to the infancy of life”
(
Swinburne, “An Unknown Poet”, 218).
Unlike the
Athenaeumʼs reviewer of the Lambsʼ
Poetry for Children,
Swinburne is willing to imagine the effect of
imaginative writing by a child writer on the “a reader of the age at which this book was written”,
and he seems to quote himself as just such a youthful reader moved by the impressive effect of these stories.
(Although this review was published in
1876,
Swinburne first submitted a version, unsuccessfully, to
Fraserʼs Magazine in 1861;
and his initial introduction to
Wellsʼs writing probably dated from as early as
1857, when he turned twenty and met
D. G. Rossetti.
Since
1849, during the initial formation of the Pre‐Raphaelite Brotherhood,
Rossetti had urged the members to regard
Wellsʼs obscure closet drama,
Joseph and His Brethren [
1824],
as a talismanic text, and
Rossetti persisted in championing
Wells through the
1860s,
but dropped the cause in the
1870s, when
Swinburne, with whom
Rossetti had quarreled, at last succeeded along with
Watts‐Dunton and others in getting the play published
[
Butler, “Pre‐Raphaelite Shibboleth”, 78, 82–84].)
Swinburneʼs alleged youthful response is scarcely suggestive, however, of an infant connection with a “nameless” and “indefinable” beauty that can belong “only to the infancy of genius”.
While
Swinburne says his youthful self found the
Stories from Nature “‘perfect in grace and power, tender and exquisite in choice of language’”, his early response also emphasized the storiesʼ
“‘noble and masculine delicacy in feeling and purpose’”. The adult
Swinburne demurs over his early enthusiasm for this boyish but masculine writing,
now demanding that a child reader of
Wellsʼs stories, “if there be in him any critical judgment or any promise of such faculty to come,” discover that the stories “relish of a bastard graft”.
Modeled on ʼs
Decameron,
the stories betray excesses of overwrought poetic prose and the influence of
Leigh Hunt
(
Swinburne, “An Unknown Poet”, 218).
Just so,
Watts‐Dunton is alarmed by the possibilities opened up by imagining a Wordsworthian child of joy gaining access to a printer before the shades of the prison‐house can close in upon him.
The only benefit of early publication,
Watts‐Dunton decides, is to act as “a sort of safety‐valve or ‘air‐hole,’
from which escapes, to the great good of the producer, the balderdash engendered, like a bad gas, by the active forces of youth.”
The child writer, instead of trailing clouds of glory, emits fatuous imagination—the advantage of such flights being that, in an age of steam,
early printing at least allows for regulation of the excess energy, as in an engine.
For according to the “economy of Nature” in an industrial age, when poets can begin publishing at age fourteen, “the more genius there is in any youthful brain
the more nonsense” there is to be “got rid of”; and as an additional benefit to the nation, early printing purges the child writerʼs impressionable imitations of others.
Just as
Swinburneʼs infant critic recognizes, “on taking up the little book [by
Wells] again in after years,” the undue “perceptible influence of
Leigh Hunt,” so
Watts‐Dunton, finds belabored in child writing “the quintessential amalgam of the literary vices of many predecessors.”
The proper “education of the poet consists not in learning, but in unlearning,” he pronounces;
and early printing at least enables the nationʼs youthful writers to unlearn all the sooner, just as the previous generation needed to rid itself of
“the concentrated essence of the sentimentality and fustian which infested the literary atmosphere of this country
during the reign of
Samuel Jackson Pratt”
(
Unsigned review of The Earlier Poems of Elizabeth Barrett Browning, 765;
Swinburne, “An Unknown Poet”, 219).
(
Pratt
was a minor writer in the age of sentiment, whom
Watts‐Dunton
cites elsewhere as a standard for the “worn‐out tawdry texture of eighteenth century platitudes”
by which to measure the superior but nonetheless “gorgeous word‐spinning so current in our time”
[
Unsigned review of English Men of Letters—Wordsworth by F. W. H. Myers, 329].)
In this angry review, then, Watts‐Dunton, belittles the child writer in similar, contradictory terms that the Athenaeum used to ostracize Shepherd.
If Shepherd is insufferably disrespectful of authority in his effete aestheticism, and yet parasitical in his subhuman feeding on the corpus of the author,
the precocious child both threatens to disrupt control by the adult Wordsworthian “literature of power” that is designed to quell yet enoble his spirit,
and yet is prone slavishly to imitate the most objectionable literary models.