University of Virginia Library

Search this document 


expand section 
expand section 
expand section 
expand section 
expand section 
collapse section 
The Publication of Tennyson's "Lucretius" by Edgar F. Shannon, Jr.
expand section 
expand section 
expand section 
expand section 
expand section 
expand section 
expand section 
expand section 
expand section 
expand section 
expand section 

expand section 


Page 146

The Publication of Tennyson's "Lucretius"
Edgar F. Shannon, Jr.

Tennyson's "Lucretius," first published in Macmillan's Magazine for May, 1868, was scheduled for simultaneous publication in the United States in the May number of the Atlantic Monthly; but the poem appeared on May 2 in Every Saturday, a weekly journal owned by Ticknor and Fields (the proprietors of the Atlantic and Tennyson's American publishers), because the page proofs from England providing the text did not arrive in time. This eventuality was only one of the impediments to publication that arose, and from the beginning a question hovered over the arrangements as to whether or not some of the erotic details of Lucretius' monologue would exceed the limits of contemporary public taste. The full description of an Oread pursued by a satyr, which appeared in America but not in Macmillan's and which Tennyson restored when he included the poem a year and a half later in The Holy Grail and Other Poems, has become celebrated in this regard.

Professor William D. Paden, using a manuscript which is now in the library of Yale University, has written valuably concerning variations in several texts of "Lucretius"; and Professor Christopher Ricks, through reference to a set of page proof for Macmillan's Magazine and a previously unpublished letter from the poet to Alexander Macmillan, both owned by Mr. W. S. G. Macmillan, has shed further light on the evolution of the poem.[1] Mr. Simon Nowell-Smith later published two additional letters relating to "Lucretius" from Tennyson to George Grove, the editor of Macmillan's Magazine, and reproduced in facsimile the letter that Ricks printed.[2] Fortunately, a number of other documents


Page 147
pertinent to the poem are extant and presently available to scholars: letters from Macmillan and Grove in the archives of the publishing firm in the British Library, several letters by Tennyson and his wife in libraries in England and America, early drafts of passages of the poem at Harvard University, the poet's complete autograph manuscript at Trinity College, Cambridge, a galley proof in the Tennyson Research Centre at Lincoln, and five sets of page proof for Macmillan's in the Berg Collection of the New York Public Library.[3] These make it possible to place the materials already published in context, to give an account of the circumstances leading to the publication of the poem and of its critical reception, and to provide a record of the alterations in the manuscripts and a historical collation of the various stages of the text. Such an enterprise not only will clarify the textual development but will supply significant insights into the poet's personality and method of composition and into the human relationships among author, publisher, editor, and wife.


Page 148


On October 6, 1865, Tennyson, as his wife records, had begun composing "his new poem of 'Lucretius.'"[4] By the end of 1867, he had brought it close to its final form—the first major work that he had completed in the three and a half years since the publication of the Enoch Arden volume in July, 1864. Throughout his literary career he had always been chary of publishing in annuals and periodicals, and he usually did so only after being importuned. In the first part of 1868, however, "feeling uneasy," according to Sir Charles Tennyson, "at his long lack of contact with the public, and not yet ready with enough poems for a new volume," he published (against his wife's judgment), besides "Lucretius," four poems in journals—"The Victim" in Good Words (January), "On a Spiteful Letter" in Once a Week (January), "Wages" in Macmillan's (February), and "1865-1866" in Good Words (March).[5] The immediate prospect of building a house in Surrey, near Haslemere, as a summer retreat from Farringford, may also have made additional income appealing; and the periodicals paid him handsomely.[6]

There can be no doubt of the urging of publishers and editors. Grove, who for some years had been on cordial terms with the Tennysons,[7] had apparently in the latter part of 1867 solicited a poem from the Laureate and was piqued that Alexander Strahan and the Reverend


Page 149
Norman Macleod, the publisher and the editor respectively of Good Words, had successfully anticipated him, for on December 23 he informed Macmillan,
I have got a little poem from A. T.—at last Mrs. Tennyson sent it today for the January No. with an injunction that if too late I was to send it back and I should have it again—This of course I have done. 2 verses very pretty and strong. a sort of pendant to the Will. ("O well for him") ["Wages"] It came very nicely and gratefully on my disappointment about Good Words (Add. MSS. 54793, fols. 17-17v).[8]
Macmillan replied the next day, "I am so glad about Tennyson. But for any sake secure them for February" (Add. MSS. 55387(2), fol. 804). An advertisement of the January number of Good Words spurred Grove to write again on Saturday, December 28, "A. T. is making himself very common: I notice a poem announced by him for Good Words. We will talk about it on Monday and see if it will be worth while for me to run down to Farringford" (Add. MSS. 54793, fol. 19). They decided that he should go, and from his residence in Lower Sydenham, he notified Macmillan on January 1, 1868, "The Tennysons will be very glad to have me . . . ." He would have set out for the Isle of Wight that morning; but the day was bitter cold, and he was "pinned—fairly floored" with lumbago (Add. MSS. 54793, fol. 23). He contrived to reach Farringford the next day, on Thursday, January 2, stayed over Friday, and returned on Saturday with Tennyson's commitment not only for "Wages" but for "Lucretius." A letter to his brother-in-law, George Granville Bradley, expresses his satisfaction:
A. T. was very charming. . . . He has been pleased to promise me Lucretius for Macmillan. The subject is not pleasant, but it is a grand poem; one of the grandest of all his works. . . . Also I hope that you will see in our February number a poem by him called Wages, more characteristic and more lofty (though shorter) than either of those in Good Words or Once a Week (Graves, Grove, pp. 155-156 [Jan. 8, 1868]).
Macmillan wrote Tennyson promptly and cordially on Monday, January 6, confirming Grove's arrangements:


Page 150

It is a great pleasure to me to learn from Grove that you are going to give us that great poem about Lucretius of which I have heard rumours so long, and also the little poem Wages which Grove, a good judge thinks so highly of. I gladly assent to the terms you and he arranged: namely £50 for the shorter & £300 for the longer.

Whether anything can be arranged to stop the piracy of the papers. I do not know whether it will be possible to hinder the little one. But I will try the big one.

Can I arrange with Ticknor and Fields about the Lucretius? I have no sort of objection to your getting as much as you can from them, provided they dont anticipate us (Add. MSS. 55387(2), fol. 848).[9]

Tennyson, recognizing that the style and subject matter of "Lucretius" might be too unconventional for the proprietor of a leading magazine to accept, replied on Wednesday, in a previously unpublished letter, now in the library of Yale University:

Farringford, Freshwater, Isle of Wight.
Jany 8lh 1868
My dear Mr Macmillan

Many thanks for yours perhaps I may be able to add another little poem to "Wages"—can't say: but I leave you free to reject Lucr. after you have seen it if you don't like it

Ever yours in great haste
A Tennyson

On January 11, Macmillan gratefully acknowledged receipt of the manuscript of "Wages" and commended its "very noble and true idea fitly expressed," though he ventured to wish that another stanza "could have been added" and, in the second line of the poem, preferred the first reading to its emended wording ("Paid with a voice flying by to be lost in an endless sea"). The expression "flying by" struck his ear as "too light a sound in the middle of a line" (Add. MSS. 55387(2), fol. 875).[10] On the same date, declaring that the poem "really is very fine," he passed the MS to Grove, who responded the next day, ". . . there is enough in these 10 lines for a whole No. . . . I have sent the Poem to Clay [Richard Clay, Macmillan's printer] . . ." (Add. MSS. 55387(2), fol. 875, and 54793, fols. 40-40v).

By Tuesday, January 14, Macmillan or Grove had received a subsequent letter from the poet containing the additional short poem that he had mentioned previously but also conveying the ominous likelihood that he could not let them have "Lucretius." This undated letter (presumably written on January 12 or 13), now in the Tennyson Research Centre, Lincoln, and here first published, reads as follows:


Page 151
My dear Grove, or Macmillan

God spake out of the skies
To a good man & a wise,
"The world & all within it
Will only last a minute."
Then a beggar began to cry
"I must eat, or I must die"
"Is it worth his while to eat,
Or mine to give him meat?"
And the world & all within it
Were nothing the next minute.
This is the first poem which if you like it you may put in before "Wages" Of course I want nothing more in the way of money. But with respect to the Lucretius I am staggered by what I hear from good authority. That if I publish in a serial I virtually give up my copyright & any one has a right to republish me. Really if this be so I must decline giving it to your Magazine however unwillingly
Believe me, respected friends,
Your's ever
A Tennyson
If you prefer the first reading in Wages pray ['you' deleted] keep it.[11]

Macmillan consulted his lawyer, John Hopgood, forthwith and assured Grove on January 14 of the solicitor's having

no doubt that we have a perfect right to prevent the Journals from copying the poem entire, and I will do it. In the meantime he will look into the legal question carefully and if needful get counsels opinion. I shall have his written opinion tomorrow. It is only a bad custom, in no sense a right that has led to this sort of elaborate plundery (Add. MSS. 55387(2), fol. 884).
The publisher was evidently so confident of allaying Tennyson's fears that he promised in a letter to James T. Fields on the same date, "Lucretius you shall have in good time" (Add. MSS. 55387(2), fol. 889); and on January 17, he informed Grove, "I sent off the Büchner to Tennyson last night. I hope you got Hopgoods written opinion which you might forward to Tennyson. I can't see the least difficulty in arranging matters so as to prevent the annoyance he anticipates" (Add. MSS. 55387(2), fol. 900).[12]


Page 152

An undated letter, written within the following week, indicates that Macmillan's and Grove's efforts had gone far toward eliminating the poet's reservations and that his wife was copying the MS for the press:

Farringford, Freshwater, Isle of Wight.
[January 17-23][13]
My dear Grove

The lawyer's opinion has not arrived but if it can be depended on there would seem no good reason why Lucretius should not appear in Macm:

In that case (I send you Ticknor & Fields letter) perhaps it would be as well not to let it appear before April, as that would accommodate the American publishers. Then it should be printed first & sent to me to correct, & afterwards dispatched to Boston. The firm has been immensely liberal to Dickens giving him £2000 for some slight essays in their publications & I suppose they would also give me something.

The passage in that foolish book of Büchners (& we have looked all over the book to find it) wouldnt do as a motto—
Yours always
A Tennyson/.

I think "flying by" is the best reading: fame goes clanging overhead—like a great bird—fainter and fainter, till the cry dies away.

My wife is copying Lucretius as there is only one MSS it is thought better not to trust that to the post./

There are a few slight errors in the copy—she says she does not think it will shock people.

Although there is no record in Tennyson's letter diary or in Emily Tennyson's journal, from a letter of January 18, Grove to Macmillan, the Laureate seems to have been at Grove's house on the afternoon of that date; and Grove added in a postscript, "hand a copy of Hopgoods letter to T. tonight" (Add. MSS. 54793, fol. 26). If Macmillan was able to do so, Tennyson should finally have been reassured, but the correspondence between publisher and editor indicates that after this date they were still awaiting a final clearance for "Lucretius" from the poet (Add. MSS. 55387(2), fol. 927). On Friday, January 24, Grove had in hand the MS that Emily had transcribed and, not wishing to delay further, reported to Macmillan, "No news from A. T. yet I shall send the MS. to the Printer on Monday" (Add. MSS. 54793, fol. 45v).

By Monday, however, Grove had received a letter from the poet's wife, and there was a new complication—Tennyson might wish to publish "Lucretius" in a volume of poems before the agreed-upon twelve months subsequent to its appearance in Macmillan's were out. Grove that day brought this letter personally to Macmillan, who at once wrote


Page 153
graciously to Mrs. Tennyson, saying that he would "not feel it any grievance" if the poem came out in a volume "two or even three months short of the year." He also told her that he and Grove had decided to hold "Lucretius" back until the May issue of the magazine, though "the temptation to let the world have that noble poem is very great. How grand it is!" Now that the February issue of Macmillan's was ready to appear, he enclosed a check for "Wages," which, he added, "we all like exceedingly" (Add. MSS. 55387(2), fol. 950).

With what seemed to be the final impediment removed, Grove, on Tuesday, committed the MS to the printer with the following instructions written on the covering leaf:

Take great care of this MS. | Set it up in Slip and ['send' deleted] pull one | proof only—which send with the | MS. to Mr. Grove—Lower Sydenham. | Size of type to be that of the ordinary | articles.

Jny 28/68[14]

Clay's compositors worked swiftly, and it is reasonable to assume that the printer returned the MS and the galley proof which Grove had ordered no later than Thursday. Certainly by the week end (as subsequent letters from Grove and Macmillan, February 2 and 3, verify) the poem was in type, and the MS was again in Grove's possession. Whether or not he sent the galley proof to Tennyson, or whether, if he did, it reached the poet before he left Farringford on Friday, January 31, for Haslemere, to fix the site of Aldworth, his new house, cannot be determined (Memoir, II, 52).

In any case, the very day that Grove dispatched the MS to Clay, he turned his attention to the best way to announce the poem's forthcoming publication—so as to build anticipation and sales—and proposed to Macmillan that they seek to get a notice into the Athenaeum or the Pall Mall Gazette. Enclosing a draft to that purpose, he invited the publisher's revisions (Add. MSS. 54793, fols. 42-42v). Macmillan preferred The Times as the appropriate vehicle, and Grove agreed on Thursday, January 30, to try to place the announcement through George Webbe Dasent, the assistant editor. In the same letter, however, he shared the disquieting information that Tennyson's friend and editorial collaborator in The Golden Treasury (1861), Francis Turner Palgrave, "thoroughly" disapproved "of Lucretius being published in a Magazine I hope to G—he wont ['put h' deleted] unsettle Tennysons mind. He's quite capable


Page 154
of it—" (Add. MSS. 54793, fol. 28).[15] Having acted vigorously by writing Palgrave to forestall this latest threat, Macmillan responded the following day, "I hope what I have said may keep him from troubling Tennyson. Payne is trouble enough" (Add. MSS. 55387(2), fol. 968).[16] By Saturday he could enclose Palgrave's response and say, "I think he will not do any harm now" (Add. MSS. 55387(2), fol. 974).

Then on Sunday, just as all looked propitious, the blow fell. Tennyson arrived in Town; and when Grove had a long talk with him, he was determined not to publish. The editor wrote Macmillan that night in great annoyance:

He WILL not let us have the Lucretius—Strahan's plaeads and Dallas's advertizments, added to Payne's and E. Lushingtons dissuasions have frightened him. I saw him today & found his mind fully made up. He is going to stop with Knowles till Wednesday morning, then to Woolner's—He said he would call on you. I have the MS. still in my possession. He said that he was quite ready to return the £50 [for "Wages"].

I confess to being very much vext, but I fear he is immoveable . . . (Add. MSS. 55793, fols. 44-44v).[17]

Macmillan was not a man to surrender his prize easily. Upon receiving Grove's message on Monday, February 3, he wrote immediately to Lushington in Edinburgh as follows:

. . . . . . . . . .

I am taking the opportunity of asking your kind countenance in a small personal matter. Mr Tennyson, as you remember gave us Sea Dreams for our Magazine, and more recently he has given us a short poem and promised a longer one—Lucretius. Indeed we actually have it in type. He now wishes to recal it; two motives chiefly operate with him as I understand: one, that other magazine publishers have dragged his name into vulgar publicity, the other that you disapprove of it. Now whatever other publishers have done, we have not been guilty in this respect, our advertisements have been unostentatious, not sensational. I think I might persuade him on this point to be content that we should have what he is *for a new issue [interlined][18] expecting in this to give us, and indeed has given us. But no objection stands in my opinion sufficiently weighty to warrant his withdrawal from this arrangement. Now I promise that there will be no vulgar advertisements, and remind you that our Magazine is in no sense a sensational magazine & never has been.


Page 155

I have heard rumours of business consideration. But Mr Tennyson knows that if I really thought it would hurt his interests I would not have accepted it. We are in a very awkward fix, if this really is withdrawn. You probably know that Mr Grove has just taken the Editorship; he has naturally been asking his friends what he had done, and they ask for it was he who obtained the poems. This withdrawal makes him look rather foolish. I am quite sure that neither he nor I would urge it for a moment did we feel that it could possibly hurt Mr Tennyson either in purse or in reputation. But the appearance of this poem in a Scholarly magazine like ours would I am sure in no way do him injury.

Forgive my putting this so pointedly to you. But I thought I might venture so far. I would prefer your acting or not acting on what I say without telling Mr Tennyson about it. But of course I have no serious objection, if you think it right to let him know that I have written you.

believe me dear Sir
very respectfully yours
A. Macmillan. (Add. MSS. 55387(2), fol. 978)

Lushington's prompt answer regrettably does not appear in the Macmillan archives, but its tenor can easily be guessed from the publisher's reply dated February 6:

I must thank you for your very kind letter, and also say that I did not ever suspect you of any unfriendly feeling towards us. Also that I very much sympathise in your objection to Mr Tennyson publishing in Magazines, and shall never urge or ask him to write another thing for us—and indeed I never did myself as he knows. What I meant to say was that we relying on his kind promise, had taken steps that would make his withdrawal extremely awkward for us, and I believe you did not feel the objection so strong as to call for such a step. I ventured to say also that the general tone & character of our magazine, made it more appropriately appear there than in others.

Pardon my again troubling you, but I don't want you to misunderstand my feeling.

believe me yours very respectfully
Alex. Macmillan. (Add. MSS. 55387(2), fol. 992)

With Lushington's opposition removed, Macmillan was able to mollify Tennyson. Since the poet remained in London until Sunday, February 9, before going on to Cambridge (Emily Tennyson's MS journal, Tennyson Research Centre), the publisher doubtless did so face to face, and by using much the same arguments and assurances that had placated Lushington. With publication of the poem finally certain, attention can now be turned to the textual development revealed in the MSS and the proofs and to subsequent correspondence pertaining to the latter.


"Lucretius" survives first in a notebook at Harvard in nine autograph fragments, totalling 138 lines (some incomplete), that I have designated MS1. These passages, which correspond to 159 lines of the final text, are not in numerical sequence; and one of them that refers


Page 156
to the satyr who chases the Oread and to Lucretius' canvassing of reasons for suicide (203-235) is a second and more advanced version of an earlier draft devoted to the same subject matter.[19]

The poet's autograph MS in a notebook at Trinity College, Cambridge (MS2), is the earliest surviving complete draft of the poem and lacks only two lines of the final text (65, 260), which were added in page proof. For the most part a fair copy that reveals notable improvement over the passages of MS1, this MS has forty-five emendations, five of them of a line or more in length; and two of them are major insertions of four and a half and four lines respectively (173-177, 213-216). Comparison of this MS with that in Emily Tennyson's hand at Yale (MS3) clearly establishes that MS2 is the text from which she copied for the press. In doing so, excepting punctuation, she made fifteen mistakes, ten of which Tennyson corrected or emended,[20] but he failed to detect five instances of miscopying—"cans't" for "can'st" (90), "floating" for "fleeting" (161), "Nymphs and Fauns" for "Nymph and Faun" (187), "slipping" for "slippery" (180), and "Who" for "who" (191)—all of which he rectified later in various stages of proof. In addition, the poet made four substantive changes in MS3. He inserted the first "he" (132) to provide a syllable necessary to the meter, substituted "an eye" for "a sight" (137) to clarify meaning, altered "with" to "against" (197) to avoid ambiguity ("butted" in opposition to not alongside or in the company of); and by deleting "Careless" and adding a second "to you" (208), he revised the line from "Careless, I know you careless, yet to you" to read "I know you careless, yet to you, to you", thus shifting the repetition to cause Lucretius to emphasize the illogic, from the point of view of his philosophy, of calling to the gods instead of having him reiterate their detached attitude toward men.[21]

The development of the text through MSS 1 and 2 evinces this same scrupulous concern for meter, accuracy of diction, clarification of unintentional ambiguity, and subtlety of emphasis. Moreover, these MSS show Tennyson's care to elevate tone and to dignify language, to move


Page 157
in description from the general to the specific, and to increase the aptness and force of verbs, which have so much to do with the powerful impact of the poem. As an illustration of the first of these aspects of his practice, in MS2 Lucretius refers to Venus as the goddess whom Paris "Pronounced the prettiest" (92)—words which Tennyson struck out and replaced with "Decided fairest". Fairness for prettiness heightened the language and the quality of Venus' beauty. "Decided" conveyed a considered judgment in place of a mere pronouncement, and a clumsy alliteration disappeared as well. From the generic and plain "brakes and bushes" (205), which in MS1 Lucretius asks to hide the satyr and the Oread, Tennyson moved in MS2 and thereafter to "million-myrtled wilderness | And cavern-shadowing laurels" (205-206). By so doing, he detailed the scene, precisely named the predominant shrubs, and through balancing the compound verbal adjectives modifying "wilderness" and "laurels", achieved both weight and motion, which the line at first had lacked. Line 186 instances the poet's attention to the vigor and appropriateness of his verbs. Originally in MS2 a riot of nymphs and fauns simply "Stirs [my italics] all the summit of the copse . . ."; as perfected, the riot "Strikes thro' the wood—sets all the tops quivering".

Further, the first two MSS corroborate the poet's propensity, notable in the Trinity MS of the Ode on the Death of the Duke of Wellington, for building a poem through added lines and skillful elaboration.[22] For example, the earliest draft in MS1 of the section beginning ". . . Catch her, goatfoot" and ending "What Roman would be dragged in triumph thus" (203-234) consisted of only ten lines. The second draft in MS1 had been expanded to twenty-two, and the third, in MS2, to twenty-eight, which in that MS were increased by an insertion to thirty-two—the number in the final text.

Emendations within the inserted four lines in MS2 (213-216) also illuminate his constant sensitivity to the nuances of expression:

No larger feast than under plane or pine
With neighbours laid along the grass to drink
Only s*uch cups [above undeleted 'o much'] as
*left [above undeleted 'made'] us friendly-warm
*Affirming [below deleted 'Defending'] each his own philosophy—
The concrete detail (as well as the metonymy) of "such cups" instead of "so much" and the moderation conveyed by the aftereffects of the wine ("left us"), as distinguished from the causal process of drinking it ("made us"), are distinct improvements. "Affirming" removes the suggestion of disputatiousness in "Defending" and dispenses with the undesirable


Page 158
possibility of a reader's connecting the warmth of "friendly-warm" as much with argument as with wine. Having introduced the wine-drinking, Tennyson then in the succeeding two lines (217-218) transposed the adjectives "sober" and "settled", so that "sober majesties" provide the immediate commentary on the scene in the first line and "settled" recedes to the second, where it joins "sweet" to become appropriately a dual modifier of "Epicurean".

From MS2 onward the passage describing the Oread (188-193) engaged the poet's attention, and one cannot deny that the comparison introducing her in the earliest version is weak:

And here an Oread lovelier than the rest
Flies on before them. How the Sun delights
To glance & shift about her slippery sides,
And rosy knees, & supple roundedness,
And budded bosom-peaks—A Satyr—see—
Follows . . . .
By deletion and interlineation in MS2 Tennyson recast the lines in this manner:
And here an Oread—how the Sun delights
To glance about her slippery sides,
And rosy knees, & supple roundedness,
And budded bosom-peaks who this way runs
Before the rest—A Satyr,—A Satyr—see—
Follows . . . .

These examples are sufficient to illustrate Tennyson's craftsmanship; and while it is tempting to pursue the implications and significance of numerous other variants in the MSS, it is necessary to proceed with an examination of the proofs.


Whether or not the galley proof in the Tennyson Research Centre (P1) is the single proof that Grove ordered Clay to pull, one cannot say; but it is the earliest surviving printed text of the poem and was set directly from MS3. There are eight compositor's errors. Four—"toils" for "tales" (130), "want" for "wont" (209), "Fanishing" for "Vanishing" (257), and "fairy's" for "Fury's" (261)—the poet corrected; four others—"proæmion" for "proœmion" (70), "hand" for "hands" (220), "backwards" for "backward" (221), "O Thou" for "for O Thou" (264)—went unmarked. The accidentals (if one disregards and's in the proof for ampersands in MS, as I do throughout) show some thirty-seven variants in this proof from MS3. The compositor cannot always have been certain about Emily's orthography and intention concerning commas, periods,


Page 159
and dashes; and he did not hesitate to introduce punctuation where there was none in the MS, to alter punctuation where he thought it desirable to do so, to change single quotation marks to double, to reduce several initial capitals to lower case, to capitalize in at least one instance of lower case, and eight times to expand to full endings of ed and ough words such as "Cracked" and "through", which in MS, according to Tennyson's custom, were written "Crack'd" and "thro'". Inconsistently, though, the proof reproduced twenty-seven such endings as they had appeared in MS3 and had "shatter'd" for "shattered" (250).

These variations in accidentals the poet disregarded except in the passage concerning the Oread (188-192). The compositor, making the description of her stand alone as a sentence and wrenching the meaning by introducing a query in line 192, had set the passage thus:

And here an Oread. How the sun delights
To glance and shift about her slipping sides
And rosy knees, and supple roundedness,
And budded bosom peaks. Who this way runs
Before the rest? A satyr—a satyr—see—
Follows . . . .
The poet's pen lowered two capitals and repunctuated these lines to read:
And here an Oread—how the sun delights
. . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . .bosom peaks—who this way runs
Before the rest—A satyr, a satyr, see—
Follows . . . .
The corrections reflect the poet's firm intention that the physical description of the Oread be parenthetical and that "who this way runs" be a statement of the direction and the nature of her motion instead of a query as to her identity or a question (which the compositor and Grove—see below—seem to have wanted) leading to the introduction of the satyr. The latter interpretation made no sense, since the satyr could not both run before the rest and follow. Despite Tennyson's diligent attention to the details of the passage, he failed to note "slipping" that Emily in MS3 had miscopied for "slippery" and the hyphen that she had omitted from "bosom-peaks". Yet in the immediately preceding lines he deleted the plural s that she had given to "Nymph" and to "Faun" (187) and decided to change dashes to commas in line 186.

Since none of these emendations appears in the next state of the text, it is unlikely that P1 was returned to the editor; and certainly the type for the first page proof cannot have been corrected from it. There must, however, have been another galley on which Grove or Clay remedied


Page 160
the four obvious typographical errors that Tennyson had marked, for these read correctly in the first two subsequent proofs extant, though the other four mistakes by the compositor persist.

All later surviving proofs are page proofs. Collation reveals that the set belonging to Mr. Macmillan (P2) and the first of those in the Berg Collection (P3) were pulled from the same type. But Tennyson's corrections in P3 advance it considerably further toward the ultimate text than do those on P2. Including the bowdlerized version of the Oread, which Ricks has described, there are ninety-two alterations, both substantives and accidentals, on P2 and ninety-nine on P3. Sixty-eight are common to both proofs, and there are fifty-five variant changes between them. But the next proof recognizes all the corrections on P3 and none of the variants on P2. The following substantive corrections (with their associated accidentals) that are not on P2 appear on P3:

Letterpress of P2 and P3   Tennyson's Altered Reading on P3  
goatherds  neat-herds (88)[23]  
I know you careless, yet  Careless, I know you careless, yet 
to you, to you,  to you (208)[24]  
Strike  Dash (246) 
. . . "It is done;  . . . "Care not thou! 
What matters? What is duty? . . .  What matters? All is over: . . .(279-280)[25]  

Tennyson probably received P2 and P3 as duplicate sets of proof and began correcting one of them (P2), where he first altered a comma to a period after his name and struck out "POET LAUREATE." under it. When he came to the Oread—the passage was still punctuated exactly as it had been in P1—he set off the full description of her with a dash over the period after "Oread", a parenthesis before "How", and a closed parenthesis instead of a period after "peaks". He changed "slipping" to "slippery" and gave the hyphen to "bosom-peaks". He also made the capital in "Who" lower case, removed the unwanted question mark after "rest", added a dash, and altered the dashes after each "satyr" to commas. Thereupon, or as the result of reconsideration later, he heavily


Page 161
excised lines 188-192 and inserted in the margin in their place: "And here an Oread—& this way she runs | Before the rest—A Satyr, a Satyr, see, | Follows;". After revising this proof extensively, he apparently abandoned it and made all his corrections for the printer on the duplicate (P3).[26] In doing so, he did not systematically transfer his corrections from one proof to the other, since, including the deleted "POET LAUREATE." and the alternate lines about the Oread, twenty-four changes on P2 are not to be found on P3.[27] (Conversely, there are thirty-one changes on P3 that do not occur on P2.) Having decided to let the full account of the Oread stand, he once again on P3 repunctuated the lines (this time using dashes alone for the parenthetical description), corrected "slipping" to "slippery", hyphenated "bosom-peaks", and reduced "How" as well as "Who" to lower case. In P3 as in P2, he revised the typographical errors: "proæmion" to "proœmion" and "O thou" to "for O Thou"; but he still overlooked the compositor's "hand" for "hands" and "backwards" for "backward".

Several of the substantive alterations introduced on both proofs require comment. Two added lines—"The fire that left a roofless Ilion," (65) and "That stays the rolling Ixionian wheel," (260)—enrich the allusiveness of the contexts in which they appear; and transposing lines 211-212 to relate to each other so—"No lewdness, narrowing envy, monkey-spite | No madness of ambition, avarice, none;"—improved the order and logical progression of the evils that Lucretius believes he has escaped. In describing the effect of the philter upon Lucretius, Tennyson not only varied the syntax, which had repeated that of the line before, but enhanced both the scientific accuracy and the conflict between the human and the bestial in Lucretius by substituting for

Tickled the brute part of the brain, and made
Havock . . .
the reading
And tickling the brute brain within the man's
Made havock . . . . (21-22)
Replacing "to drink" with "to take" (214), in the passage about drinking with neighbors on the grass, muted any note of excess that the former


Page 162
verb might carry and furthered the tone of moderation and restrained enjoyment. In another instance, while regularizing a foot in the line of blank verse may have been a factor, concern over the fleshliness of the poem seems to have led him to excise "Naked" in describing the Hetairai (52).

Without doubt Tennyson's letter to Macmillan, dated Shrove Tuesday, 1868 (February 25), which belongs to Mr. W. S. G. Macmillan and which Ricks first published, refers to P3 and may have accompanied it to the publisher.[28] In this letter the author said:

I had rather if you have no objection see my Lucretius once again. If you don't publish before May—(have you decided upon it) there will be ample time to send it out to ['send it out' deleted] to Fields.

Payne has put me into a great perplexity by advertising the Standard Edition in his tremendous style—before any agreement was signed & before I had made up my mind as to whether I would have one at all. I expect now that if I do not publish this edition (and I have little desire to do it) the sale of the ['othe' deleted] old one will fall off in expectation of this. . . .

Then there is a postscript across the top of the sheet, "I left in the Oread —do you wish her out?"

When Macmillan wrote two days later, he referred to this letter. By some means Tennyson had conveyed to Grove and Macmillan the expurgated version of the Oread and had expressed a wish for the poem to appear in larger type than that of articles in the magazine:

Feb: 27. 1868.
Dear Mr Tennyson,

You shall certainly have a fresh proof. I had ordered the next in the larger type which you seemed to prefer.

Grove seemed to prefer the shorter description of the Oread. On the whole the balance of taste seems in favour of it. You shall see both, and I will leave you & Grove to decide.

You will no doubt arrange that the ucretius does not come in the Standard Edition till the last volume. Have you settled the order?

Grove will write you again [in] a few days.

Yours ever faithfully
Alex. Macmillan. (Add. MSS. 55388(1), fol. 66)

As a result of Macmillan's decision to enlarge the type (he went from 9 to 10 point and increased the leading between lines), a complete resetting, with its consequent opportunity for compositor's errors, was necessary. Moreover, the larger type and more generous leading expanded the text onto an additional page, though it is wanting in the next Berg proof (P4). This proof, which Tennyson never saw, contains the full description of the Oread with all the corrections that he made


Page 163
in it on P3. Clay sent P4 to Grove with the notation in ink, written across the top of the first page, "A few suggestions in punctuation | are submitted in this proof | RC". When Grove had finished his review of Clay's suggestions and had made his own corrections, he returned the proof with the printer's note struck out and this direction in ink above it: "2 revises to Mrr Grove by return Feb. 29". Since the ink and width of pen differ, it is clear which are Clay's and which are Grove's proofreading marks.

Grove approved all Clay's suggestions and made two revisions of his own in accidentals (removal of a diacritical mark over the second a in "Cadmeän" [50] and substitution of a period for a dash at the end of a line [218]). There were three egregious errors, however, that Clay had failed to recognize. Although Grove marked them, and they were corrected, they eventually corrupted the text as published in America. The first two resulted from the compositor's misunderstanding of emendations on P3. Instead of the intended, "And tickling the brute brain within the man's", he set, "And tickling the brute within the man's brain". "Careless", which Tennyson wrote at the beginning of the line before "I" (208), he substituted for a deleted "to you", so that the wording became, "I know you careless, yet careless, to you". In the third instance (209), he simply misread "childly wont" in P3 and put "chilly want". One other typographical error eluded Grove—a w for an h, making "halls" into "walls" in "windy halls of heaven" (136).

Grove's and Clay's emendations were accomplished that day, and the two revises which the editor had ordered were sent back to him (a tab pasted on the uncorrected one bears Clay's name and the date "Feb. 29, 1868."). These proofs still contained the full description of the Oread (188-191), but the expurgated version with the succeeding line about the satyr ("And here an Oread—and this way she runs | Before the rest—A Satyr, a Satyr, see") had been printed on a slip of paper, which, forming an overlay for lines 188-192, had been tipped in at the righthand end on the set that went to Tennyson (P5).[29]

Grove dispatched this proof to the author on March 2, accompanied by the following letter:

March 2/68
Dear Mr Tennyson,

Enclosed is Lucretius in his last stage with the alternative version of the Oread

I have put a query or two at some places where the punctuation seemed to me wrong. which you will pardon with your usual clemency.


Page 164

For the public perhaps the new Oread is the best—though I confess I love the old one—only I find fault with the "who" (who this way runs")—I cant read it without an emphasis on the who, and then I am obliged to make a question of it "who this way runs before the rest?"

"Vast and filthy hand" I prefer hands as it was in the original MS.

"But who was he" &c This seems to me very abrupt—to spring from nothing that has gone before (my ignorance doubtless), and the very "but" itself helps the feeling.

"Nymph and Faun"

I prefer Nymphs and Fauns.

Is the singular ever used ['for' deleted] in the case of animate or intelligent creatures? "into oak and ash"—I should not mind—but the other displeases me a little.

"Dash them afresh"

the sh seems to me to go badly with that in afresh—and the dash has a rude sound of collision, not like the operation of nature or of atomic nature:—would not "force" or "thrust" be better.

"Care not thou" is not an improvement—the idea is better than the old one, but the words are awkward I think—on the whole I like the 2 last lines better as they stood before


I know the Poem now pretty well: and every time I say it to myself like it better & see more force in it. Please do some Old Testament subjects in the same way My kindest regards to Mrs Tennyson
Yours ever
G. Grove
1865-6 [in Good Words for March] is lovely—and so full of life—a trifle—but what a trifle (Tennyson Research Centre)?

One of the editor's two queries in the margin of P5 suggested a semicolon instead of a comma after "nor" in line 132. Tennyson let the comma stand by crossing out Grove's marks; but the question stimulated him to change the comma at the end of the line to a semicolon. The second query appears to have proposed a period to replace a dash at the end of line 248. The poet also rejected this alteration, though one should note that he did not demur to any of the accidentals that Clay and Grove had contributed to the text on P4.

Tennyson disregarded most of the strictures in Grove's letter, but he changed "hand" to "hands" (220) and "afresh" to "anew" (246). The editor's still wanting to read "who this way runs | Before the rest" as a question doubtless prompted him to set these words off in the long version by parentheses in preference to the existing dashes. Also, in the full text he converted the semicolons in "A satyr; a satyr;" (192) to commas. "To peer behind the laurels" became "What?—that the bush were leafless?" (206); and deleting the initial "careless" and inserting "behold", set off in commas after "yet" (208), at last solved that troublesome line. "Kupris" he made "Kypris" (95). Further, he contracted "although" to "altho'" (133), added at the ends of lines 204 and 205 a comma and a dash respectively, and inserted a comma after the last word of line 258.


Page 165

The next day he returned P5 to Grove with this letter:

Farringford, Freshwater, Isle of Wight.
March 3rd 1868
My dear Grove

To peer behind the laurels is to me the least decorous passage in the poem. I have altered it

—do I wish—
What? that the bush were leafless, or &c.


I know you careless, yet behold, to you
"backward" instead of backwards

I never put an unnecessary S. hand for hands is the printers not mine

Pray let this be sent off by the next American mail, I believe, on Thursday or Fields will say it has come too late—

With respect to the Oread please yourself but send the full passage to America—They are not so squeamish as we are.[30]

Yours my dear Grove
in great haste
A Tennyson
Kypris for Kupris anew for afresh

Despite the concern for decorousness that Tennyson's removing "To peer behind the laurels" indicates, he stood by his own preference for the unexpurgated Oread by drawing a slanting vertical line from left to right across the tipped-in alternative. When this proof came back from the author, it went to the printer with the notation in ink in the upper left-hand corner, though not in Grove's hand, "3 Revises | instantly."

After Tennyson's corrections on P5 had been set, "Lucretius" had all but reached its final state for Macmillan's Magazine. On March 4, Mrs. Tennyson wrote Fields to tell him that her husband had requested Grove to send him "Lucretius" "by the next mail tho' it is not to be published until May" (University of Virginia). Grove must have conveyed one of the revises of P5 to Tennyson, who also wrote Fields in these words:


Page 166

Farringford, Freshwater, Isle of Wight.
March 10/68
My dear Mr Fields

The Editor of Macmillan's Mag. tells me that according to my request he has forwarded to you Lucretius. I find a misprint in the proofs sent to me "windy Walls" instead of "Halls of Heaven"—pray correct it when you insert the piece in your May number. Believe me

Yours very truly
A Tennyson (Wellesley College)

Contrary to Tennyson's belief that the poem had already gone to America, a week apparently elapsed before it was in fact posted to Fields along with a letter from Macmillan, dated March 17, 1868, in which he wrote:

I send you by this mail, enclosed in this letter, Tennyson's magnificent poem Lucretius. It will appear in the May number of our Magazine, and so also of course in the May Atlantic. On Saturday a duplicate will follow. You will see an alternative reading. I have hardly made up my mind which to adopt. Everyone who has seen it here says it is quite the grandest thing he has written. I wonder what you *will [interlined] think of it (Add. MSS. 55388(1), fol. 141).
It is odd that in spite of Tennyson's injunction to Grove about sending the full Oread to America, Macmillan included the alternative version, without any indication as to the poet's preference, and that he professed himself still undecided as to which lines to use in Macmillan's after what both he and the editor had previously written to Farringford. At any rate, Tennyson turned out to have judged the Americans correctly.

From Macmillan's letter one would assume that he sent Fields a proof pulled from the type after Tennyson's corrections on P5 had been made, with the expurgated Oread tipped or folded in. (It had been approximately two weeks since three revises instantly had been called for.) And, indeed, except for the emendation of line 208 to read "I know you careless, yet, behold, to you", all Tennyson's significant changes on P5 had been incorporated when the poem appeared in America: "Kypris", "What? that the bush were leafless?", "hands", "backward", "anew", and the description of the Oread set off in parentheses instead of dashes.[31] Yet one of the two proofs mailed to Fields, through some unaccountable mistake, must have been an uncorrected or incompletely corrected duplicate of P4, for sixteen readings in the letterpress of that proof, both substantives and accidentals, that Clay, Grove, or Tennyson had altered either on P4 or P5 appeared in Every Saturday. These included the three major blunders by the compositor in setting P4: "And tickling the brute


Page 167
within the man's brain" (21), "I know you careless, yet careless, to you" (208), and "chilly want" (209).[32]

After receiving Tennyson's letter of March 10 that a proof of "Lucretius" had been sent, Fields, on March 30, informed the poet that it had not arrived and requested a duplicate immediately (Add. MSS. 54986, fol. 209v). When this news reached Farringford, Emily Tennyson, on April 13, addressing her letter to Grove or Macmillan, asked that "another copy of Lucretius" be sent "by the Thursday's post" (Add. MSS. 54986, fol. 207). The next day Macmillan responded:

. . . tomorrow—Wednesday *& Saturday [interlined] are the post days—we shall send him the first sheet of the Magazine which contains the Poem. We had already sent him two proofs by letter post—one on March 17 & the other on March 20. There can be no doubt that he had them both in ample time for the May Atlantic (Add. MSS. 55388(1), fol. 236).
His confidence was of course misplaced, and the copy of the first sheet of the magazine cannot have reached Fields before Every Saturday went to press or presumably some of the errors would have been rectified.

A proof of the first octavo gathering of Macmillan's, which bears Tennyson's autograph in the upper right-hand corner of the first page (P6), is extant in the Berg Collection. It embraces all Tennyson's alterations on P5, and "halls" (136) shows correctly. In addition, there are three variants in punctuation that he had not marked for change: "abroad:" has become "abroad;" (88), "spit," appears as "spit—" (132), and "Oread—" reads "Oread," (188). The only proofreader's marks on P6 are a stroke under the comma after "LUCRETIUS," in the title, and "q." in the right-hand margin. The query seems to be the printer's rather than the editor's or Tennyson's. A period replaced the comma when the poem appeared in Macmillan's.[33]


Page 168

At the end of April, when the May issue was at last published and on the very day that the first review appeared in the Pall Mall Gazette, Macmillan wrote thus to Emily Tennyson:

April 29. 1868.
Dear Mrs Tennyson

I am not sure whether Mr Tennyson has gone home, so I address the enclosed cheque to you, as, even if he were about, he would probably not care to have the charge of it.

It is indeed a great honour to have this noble poem in our pages. I cannot conceive that it should be felt to be other than noble in art & in purpose by any one.

I have had much pleasure in seeing him two or three times lately. How well he looks! I thought he was worrying himself about some affairs. If he or you think I can be of use in any way you know how glad I would be. I will run down at any time to see & talk any matters over with you.

Yours very faithfully
A. Macmillan. (Add. MSS. 55388(1), fol. 301)

To Macmillan's letter of March 15, Fields replied good-humoredly as follows:

Boston, May 4th. 1868.
My dear Macmillan

Tennyson's "Lucretius" did not reach us in time for our May Atlantic. We printed it in our "Every Saturday", and it was immediately cribbed all over the country and printed in magazines and newspapers. It was a great disappointment to us not to have it for the Atlantic, but we did the next best thing left us and put it into the weekly. You ask me what I think of the poem. It is a very grand and Tennysonian piece, but I do not agree with those of your friends who say: "it is quite the grandest thing he has written." Parts of it are in his loftiest vein, but I still hold by "Ulysses", "The death of Arthur", and "In Memoriam" With kind regards from Mrs. Fields to your wife and yourself.

Ever faithfully yours
J.T. Fields.
I enclose you a new poem by Lowell which goes into our June Atlantic. You are welcome to use it in your magazine if it arrives in season (Add. MSS. 54891, fols. 49-50)[34]


Considering the sensual explicitness of "Lucretius," its reception in England was remarkably favorable. Benjamin Jowett wrote Emily Tennyson, "I thought 'Lucretius' a most noble poem, and that is the universal impression," though as Masson had predicted, the poem did "not pass without" some "yelping on various sides" (Memoir, II, 55; Buckler, p. 270, and Letters to Macmillan, p. 115). Macmillan, true to his promise to stop its being plundered in Great Britain, printed a prefatory note


Page 169
declaring that extracts to indicate the character of the new work "must be confined to moderate length, and that the reproduction of either the whole or the major part of 'Lucretius' will be an infringement of the law of copyright . . . and not needed for the legitimate purposes of criticism." This note, which does not appear in the bound volume of Macmillan's, was quoted in its entirety in Lloyd's Weekly Newspaper (May 10, p. 8). Lloyd's, while referring to "Lucretius" as "a high utterance of . . . [the poet's] genius," took vehement exception to Macmillan's prohibition of lengthy extracts and refused, as a consequence, to make any quotation from the poem—"we will take not a single hair from the tail of their expensive Pegasus." The daily Sun, in a survey of the magazines for the month of May, also alluded to this deterrent, remarking that the proprietors of Macmillan's "seem especially jealous" of the poem, and said that it was not in Tennyson's "happiest vein" (May 1, p. [3]). The Globe and Traveller, an evening paper, in noticing the magazines on May 5, said that "Lucretius" was "almost worthy of Mr. Robert Browning" (p. [1]). The Sunday Times, on May 10, found the ending abrupt and the poem "disfigured with such stupid periphrases as 'hired animalisms,' and such ill-chosen expressions as the term 'apple-arbiter,' which is applied to Paris" (p. 7). Two religious periodicals, the Literary World (a monthly supplement to the Christian World) for May 15 and the Christian Observer for June, deplored Tennyson's choice of subject matter (I, 42) and the sight of "the first poet of this Christian land" conveying "the benighted sentiments of a heathen philosopher pleading for self-destruction" (pp. 467-471). In contrast to these scattered notes of disparagement, there was a chorus of praise for the artistry of the poem and the distinction of its blank verse—even the Literary World admired "the workmanship" of the monologue and the Christian Observer alluded to its "majestic verse."

The first review to appear, on April 29 in the Pall Mall Gazette, an evening daily of high literary repute, owned by George Murray Smith and edited by Frederick Greenwood, set the prevailing tone of adulation (pp. 11-12).[35] Its writer ridiculed the false gentility of those who thought Tennyson should be above publishing in magazines and reminded readers that "Tithonus"—one of the finest pieces of Tennyson's art, to which


Page 170
"Lucretius" was in every way comparable—had been published in the Cornhill. In treating the subject, the poet had avoided the imaginative "splendours" that Robert Lytton (first Earl of Lytton [1831-1891], who wrote under the nom de plume "Owen Meredith") might have lavished on Lucilia and the excesses that would have been typical of Swinburne, "not out of squeamishness simply, but because he chose to be faithful to his work rather than splendid in it." He had succeeded in writing of eroticism and animal passion "so that not even the most feverish libertine might find a line for his enjoyment" or anything to tickle a "prurient fancy."

On Saturday, May 2, four laudatory reviews appeared in weekly journals. The Imperial Review reported "Lucretius" to be "in every way worthy of the author of In Memoriam and the Idylls of the King" and of equal rank with those "exquisite" poems "Œnone" and "Tithonus" (3, 413-414). The Inquirer wrote of the poem, "It is one of the finest bits of blank verse that . . . [Tennyson] has ever written, and may be compared with his well-known 'Tithonus' . . ." (27, 277). In a detailed critique of the poem the London Review and Weekly Journal referred to "Lucretius" as "a very beautiful work of art," a "striking and impressive poem" (16, 429); and the Spectator, now exerting renewed influence under the joint editorship of Richard Holt Hutton and Meredith Townsend, devoted a "middle article" to what it considered "a grand poem, which will live with Mr. Tennyson's finest creations" (41, 523-524).[36] The next Saturday, May 9, Macmillan quoted a brief extract from each of these reviews in an advertisement in the Athenaeum (59, 676), presumably not "vulgar" advertising, and four more weeklies—the Examiner (p. 296), the Illustrated London News (52, 471), the Illustrated Times (12, 346),[37] and Punch (54,205)—assessed the poem favorably. Punch's humorous questionnaire on the new work, in order for diners-out to be prepared to discuss it at dinner-parties, testifies to the wide-spread attention "Lucretius" was attracting.

On Monday Macmillan directed this letter to the poet's wife:

May 11, 1868
My dear Mrs Tennyson,

I hope I am not boring you in sending notices that appear in the papers about "Lucretius." It is a habit we have in regard to our books generally, but some authors—I


Page 171
dont blame them—dislike all these pattings on the head, or slappings in the face from men whose praise or blame often is equally worthless. The Pall Mall, Spectator & Punch are about the best.

Would Mr Tennyson care to look at Mr Jebbs article on the poem & the subject? It seems to me very delicately done.

I hope you are all well, and that the mild gai[e]ties of Clapham have not disturbed him.[38]

With kindest regards to the Poet & the boys.

Yours very faithfully
Alex Macmillan. (Add. MSS. 55388(1), fol. 340)

She replied the next day:

Farringford, Freshwater, Isle of Wight.
May 12th 1868
Dear Mr Macmillan,

It is very kind in you sending the favourable reviews. Unless there be anything you particularly wish him to see perhaps he has now seen enough *when he has seen the Jebb you mention [interlined]. Those three you name are decidedly the best, I think. "The Nation", the most impertinent *I have seen as a whole [interlined] I have fortunately been able to hide from him The beginning of the Cosmopolitan, equally impertinent, he saw. . . .[39]


Page 172

[P.S.] He seems to enjoy his Clapham visits, thank you.

We shall be very anxious to know that you are not a loser by Lucretius (Add. MSS. 54986, fols. 213-214).

On the same day that Macmillan wrote to Mrs. Tennyson, The Times issued a resounding encomium by Eneas Sweetland Dallas, who declared "Lucretius" to be "a poem of such power as to demand a notice"—recognition that The Times did "not usually accord to works issued" in a magazine (May 11, p. 12).[40] For him it was "a magnificent piece"; and as if to answer the London Review, which had complained of "'experiments' in versification" in such lines as 30, 40, 53, and 126,[41] he exalted Tennyson as "unapproachable since Milton" for "the melody" of his verse. "To whom, if not to such a man," Dallas demanded, "are we to allow the liberty of altering the rhythm of blank verse?"

Two days later, May 13, the weekly Guardian, in an extended commentary continued the panegyrical strain (23, 564); and by May 20, the Nonconformist could announce, "Tennyson's Lucretius has more than sustained its great reputation. The last number of Macmillan's Magazine has already reached a third edition in consequence of its appearance" (p. 511)—the answer to Emily's fears that Macmillan might lose financially on the poem.

At the end of the month, by a letter dated May 29, Macmillan was able to inform Jebb,

I was with Tennyson last Sunday [May 24]. He asked particularly about your article & I chanced to have a proof in my bag so I gave it him. He liked it & said it told him at least one thing he could not remember—where the story of Picus & Faunus is to be found [Ovid's Fasti] (Add. MSS. 55388(1), fol. 399).
Jebb's purpose, in his signed piece in Macmillan's for June, was to demonstrate the "historical truth" of Tennyson's Lucretius as a value of the work going beyond its simply artistic quality (18, [97]-103). Not that one had to have read De Rerum Natura "in order to enjoy" the poem; but the Laureate had "been very successful in reproducing that impression of Lucretius which is derived from the Latin . . . not by direct imitation or allusion; not by the painting of particular striking traits; but by a force of imaginative sympathy which seizes and represents their result."

Tinsley's Magazine for July gave "Lucretius" further critical approbation: it would "rank among the best" of Tennyson's poems (2, 611-616). His treatment was severe and "chaste," compared to "the pruriency" that might have been expected from Swinburne.


Page 173

Finally, in October, the Methodist London Quarterly Review, after extolling the poet as "a well-versed psychologist" and "a consummate artist," applauded the blank verse as "of the finest and richest quality that Mr. Tennyson has produced . . ." (31, 249-254). Furthermore, he was heartily to be congratulated—"at a time when Swinburne is read and apparently relished"—that "the moralist can find no weak or erring point in Lucretius." The London Quarterly Review, however, provided in a footnote the full version of the Oread from a Canadian edition to indicate the "narrow escape" that English readers had had from "a very considerable blemish," to which Americans had been subjected. This reviewer also singled out one line for objection: "Poor little life that toddles half an hour" (228), in which he found the idea dramatically sound "but the expression 'toddles half an hour' . . . too trivial and inelegant for propriety in so austere and grand an entourage."

Despite Tennyson's recognized sensitivity to criticism, when he republished "Lucretius" in the Holy Grail and Other Poems (1870), issued in December, 1869, he ignored all such strictures on lines or phrases; and in the face of the London Quarterly Review (though one cannot be certain that he saw it), he restored to the text the complete description of the Oread. A significant substantive change in the last line of the poem—in part a return to the reading of MS2 through P3—suggests, however, that he may have taken into account the commentary of this critic, who regretted Lucilia's reappearance, and after quoting the passage describing it, wrote as follows:

This is lamentably prosaic and out of place: and having once fallen out of the lofty vein of thought and expression antecendently characteristic of the poem, Mr. Tennyson appears to have been incapable of rising again to the exigencies of the occasion when the speech is given to Lucretius once more; for, when the dying lips are again unlocked, it is only to utter the poor trite words— "Care not thou!
What matters? All is over: fare thee well!"
Tennyson, to be sure, did not dispense with Lucilia, but Lucretius' biddings to her lacked direct pertinence to the theme and were indeed rather banal. Grove also had expressed a preference for the earlier language of the last line: "What matters? What is duty? Fare thee well!"[42] By re-introducing the idea of duty—which Lucretius echoes from Lucilia's berating herself for "having fail'd in duty to him" (277)—and by intensifying it in the final text ("Thy duty? What is duty? Fare thee well!") Tennyson both increased the dramatic interplay between Lucretius


Page 174
and his wife (which had become flaccid in the previous reading) and preserved to the very end the poem's ironic emphasis on spiritual values.

Afterward, there would be further polishing of accidentals; and a change of "And" to "That" (261) occurred in the Eversley Edition.[43] But with the felicitous stroke in the concluding line, seemingly slight yet quite consequential, the poet essentially completed the involved process of fashioning "Lucretius."


MS in the Houghton Library, Harvard University. MS1, comprised of nine discrete passages of "Lucretius" in Tennyson's autograph, is at Harvard in a marbled notebook, measuring 6⅞” x 9½” (Call no. MS Eng 952(37)). The spine has been reinforced with orange tape that overlaps approximately 1¾” on both front and back covers. In the center of the inside front cover is the penciled word 'Epigrams'; the inside back cover at the top has a tab pasted in bearing the call number of the Houghton Library and specifying the Amy Lowell fund. This notebook also contains a table headed 'Grimm's Law.', "The Snowdrop," a number of short epigrammatic verses, fragments of "Balin and Balan," "Merlin and Vivien," and "The Passing of Arthur," and five stanzas of "The Northern Farmer: New Style." Some of the leaves of blue laid paper, watermarked 'E Towgood | 1863' and measuring 6⅜” x 9”, have been torn out and only stubs remain. The existing leaves have been numbered in pencil 1-20. The passages of "Lucretius," which are not all in numerical sequence, total 138 lines (some incomplete, including 3 of a single word, and 4 deleted) that correspond to 159 lines of the final text. They appear on fols. 1v-4 and 12-14 as follows: fol. 1v (8 lines for final ll. 47-55); fol. 2 (undeleted first draft of 10 lines for ll. 203-234, superseded by passage on fol. 4); fol 2v (single word 'Venus' [l. 67?], l. 240 deleted, ll. 133-136); fol. 3 (ll. 137-163); fol. 3v blank; fol. 4 (22 lines for ll. 203-235); fol. 12 (21 lines for ll. 26-48); fol. 12v (3 lines for ll. 60-66); fol. 13 (23 lines for ll. 67-97); fol. 13v (ll. 98-102); fol. 14 (13 lines for ll. 103-123).

MS in the Library of Trinity College, Cambridge. MS2, in the poet's


Page 175
autograph, at Trinity College, is bound in a marbled notebook, measuring 6frac1116” x 9¾” (Press mark O. 15. 33). The spine has been reinforced with orange tape that overlaps approximately 1½” on both front and back covers. On a piece of white cloth tape, 2” long, pasted in the middle of the spine, is printed by hand in ink, vertically with the spine, reading down, 'Lucretius. The Victim.' In addition to "Lucretius" this notebook contains "1865-1866," "The Victim," "Immeasurable sadness," "History," and a few draft fragments of other poems. The leaves of blue laid paper, watermarked 'E Towgood | 1863' and measuring 6⅜” x 9⅛”, have been numbered in pencil; and MS2, which bears no title, appears on fols. 4v-14. The versos of fols. 5-8, 11-13 are blank; fol. 9v carries four and a half lines (173-177) to be substituted for one and a half lines deleted on fol. 10 opposite, and fol. 10v has four lines (213-216) to be inserted before a deleted line that preceded l. 217 on fol. 11.

MS in the Beinecke Library, Yale University. MS3, in the poet's wife's hand with Tennyson's autograph corrections, at Yale, consists of a single gathering, folded once, of eighteen leaves of blue laid paper, watermarked with a design and measuring 6⅜” x 9”. Leaves 1-12, on which the untitled poem appears (the versos are blank) have been numbered in pencil; the remaining six leaves are blank and unnumbered. The MS has been bound in blue laid paper measuring 6⅞” x 9¼”, which is watermarked in the front cover 'Towgood's Extra Super' and in the back cover with a design of the Queen seated, holding a ball in her right hand, and having a spear and shield at her left side. The white thread sewing the gathering is loose but still partly stuck to the cover, which was pasted on. In the top half of the front cover, George Grove, the editor of Macmillan's has written, 'Take great care of this MS. | Set it up in Slip and ['send' deleted] pull one | proof only—which send with the | MS. to Mr. Grove-Lower Sydenham. | Size of type to be that of the ordinary | articles. | Jny 28/68'.

Galley Proof in the Tennyson Research Centre, Lincoln. P1, in the Lincoln Research Centre, has the poet's autograph corrections and consists of three columns of letterpress on a single demy sheet of white wove paper, 17½” x 22½”. The upper left-hand corner of the sheet has been torn away, so that the first word of the first and of the second lines ('Lucilia' and 'Her') and the upper part of both letters of the first word in the third line ('Of') are missing. Two columns of letterpress appear vertically on the sheet, with the third column printed horizontally below them. The second and third columns carry the printed numbers '2' and '3' in their respective upper right-hand corners. There are one hundred one lines in the first column, one hundred eight in the second, and sixty-nine in the third. The type is 9-point Scotch Roman, the usual type for articles in Macmillan's Magazine. The lower left-hand corner of the sheet is also torn away. As in the MSS, no title of the poem or author's name precedes the text.

Page Proof Owned by Mr. W. S. G. Macmillan. P2, belonging to Mr. Macmillan, is printed in 9-point Scotch Roman, imposed 41 lines to the page, on white wove paper, measuring (with slight variations) 5¾” x 9” and paginated [351]-358. The first page is headed 'MACMILLAN'S MAGAZINE. | MAY, 1868. | [rule] | LUCRETIUS, | By ALFRED TENNYSON, | POET LAUREATE. | [rule]'. 'No. 104.—vol. xvii.' occurs on the bottom left-hand of the page, and the signature 'b' is on the bottom right-hand. The


Page 176
running title 'Lucretius.' is centered at the top of each succeeding page. Tennyson's autograph corrections are numerous. This proof is bound in red morocco covers, measuring 6¼” x 9¼”, with gilt lettering on the spine and gilt-edged leaves. The spine reads vertically from top to bottom, '[vine design] LUCRETIUS.—ALFRED TENNYSON [vine design]'. 'Lib.A.' has been written in pencil on the upper left-hand corner of the second front flyleaf. A small white tab ⅞” square, bearing the number '112.' in ink, has been pasted in the lower left-hand corner of the inside back cover.

Page Proofs in the Berg Collection, New York Public Library. Three successive sets of proof—P3-5—and an uncorrected duplicate of P5 are preserved in the Berg Collection in a green morocco slip case by Riviere. The spine reads in gilt letters, 'LUCRETIUS | [short rule] | TENNYSON | WITH | CORRECTIONS | BY THE | AUTHOR'; below there is a tab pasted on, which, reading up vertically with the spine, carries the notation in ink 'Case 1.' In all typographical details, P3, printed on white wove paper approximately 5⅞” x 9⅛”, corresponds to P2 above, and the poet's alterations are even more extensive. The number '3572c' has been penciled on the upper left-hand corner of the first page, the stamped number 179404B stands on the bottom right of p. 357, and 'THE NEW YORK | PUBLIC LIBRARY' within a double-ruled oblong box has been stamped just below the letterpress in the center of p. 358.

P4, of which the pages measure approximately 6” x 8frac1116”, shows the same heading, date, title, and author's name and office as P2 and P3, but the volume number differs, so that the lower left-hand of the first page carries, 'No. 104.—vol. xviii.'; and the signature 'b' appears in the center of the page immediately below the letterpress instead of on the right-hand. The running title 'Lucretius.' duplicates that of the two preceding proofs. Owing to an increase in the size of type from 9 to 10 point, imposed 38 lines to the page, the text of the poem runs one page longer than in P2 and P3, i.e., pp. [351]-359, but p. 359 is wanting. P4 bears corrections by Richard Clay, the printer, and by Grove, but none by the poet. Across the top of p. [351] is the notation in ink. 'A few suggestions in the punctuation | are recommended in this proof | RC'. Slanting strokes of the pen, with a squiggle over 'RC', cancel this comment; and above it in ink, Grove has inserted the direction, '2 Revises to Mr Grove by return Feb. 29'. The upper left-hand corner also has in pencil, '3572a'. The number '179401B' has been stamped at the bottom right of p. 357, and the stamp of the New York Public Library shows on p. 358 below the last line of type (270).

P5, of which the white wove pages measure approximately 6” x 9⅛”, is in all details of heading, date, title, author's name and office, number, volume, signature, running title, size of type, and pagination identical to P4 except that, having p. 359, it contains the complete text of the poem. It bears Tennyson's autograph corrections and, in the upper left-hand corner of the first page, carries the direction in ink (not in Grove's hand) between two slanting horizontal lines, measuring in length ¾” and 1” respectively, '3 Revises | instantly.' Also just below, in the same corner, is the number '3572b' in pencil. The text contains the full description of the Oread; and a slip, on which is printed the expurgated version and the line following, has been tipped in to the margin at the right-hand end to form an overlay (which


Page 177
can be lifted from the left end) for lines 188-192. On p. 357 at the bottom right, there is the stamped number '179402B', and the New York Public Library stamp appears at the bottom of p. 358 and on the blank verso of p. 359.

The uncorrected duplicate of P5 has pasted on the upper left-hand corner of the first page a printed tab that contains the following: 'Feb. 29, 1868. | From R. Clay's | Printing Office, | Bread Street Hill. 2 A.P. S.711.' ('Feb. 29,', '68' and '2 A.P. S.711.' have been filled in by hand in ink.) Two folded slips, upon each of which is printed the expurgated version of the Oread and the line following, lie between pp. 352 and 353. Page 359 of this proof is missing. The New York Public Library stamp appears at the bottom of p. 358.

P6, the final proof in the Berg Collection, is in a brown cloth folding case, measuring 6¼” x 9”, the spine of which reads vertically from top to bottom in gilt letters, 'LUCRETIUS—TENNYSON—MACMILLAN'S. MAY 1868 (FIRST APPEARANCE SIGNED)'. A pasted tab at the bottom of the spine, reading down, shows in ink '[Cas]e 2'. This proof is an unsewn first octavo gathering for Macmillan's Magazine, in which the text of "Lucretius" covers pp. [1]-9 and is followed on pp. 10-16 by an article entitled "Luxury and the Scholar." The pages measure approximately 6¼” x 9”; all typographical details of the poem correspond to P5 with the following exceptions: the issue number at the bottom left-hand of the first page is 'No. 103.' instead of 'No. 104.', the signature 'b' is to the right below the letter-press instead of in the center, the signature 'b2' appears to the right below the letterpress on p. 3, and the poem has been imposed 37 lines to the page instead of 38. In the center at the bottom of p. [1] there is the penciled number '2983', the stamped number 179405B stands at the bottom right of p. 9, and the New York Public Library stamp appears in the center at the foot of p. 16. On P6 the only proofreading marks (apparently the printer's and not Tennyson's) question whether a period should be substituted for a comma after the title of the poem. The poet's autograph, 'ATennyson', occupies the upper right-hand corner of p. [1].

Proof Copy in the Beinecke Library, Yale University. The text of this uncorrected proof copy (Call no. Rare Book Room | Ip | T258 | 868La), except for a missing exclamation mark at the end of l. 279, is identical with that printed in Macmillan's. The heading of the first page, however, does not have the name and date of the magazine, the number and volume do not appear at the bottom of the page, and the signature is lacking (though as in Macmillan's, the signature b2 appears to the right at the foot of the third page of type). The nine pages of the poem (37 lines to the page) have been printed on the rectos only of nine unnumbered gilt-edged leaves, measuring 5½” x 8½”. Folios [2]-[9] have the running title 'Lucretius.'; the versos are blank. This proof copy, which is bound in purple pebbled boards, measuring 5⅞” x 8¾”, has the title 'LUCRETIUS.' in gilt between rules on the front cover. The inside front and back covers are yellow, as are the end papers. At the top of the inside front cover in pencil is the partially erroneous notation, '1st. Edit | Galley proof of Lucretius as | published in Macmillan's Magazine | May 1868.' Also on the front inside cover is the Yale University Library bookplate, carrying the information 'Gift of | HENRY C.


Page 178
HUTCHINS'. The letters 'N/E/B' in pencil occur on the upper middle portion of the inside back cover; and in the lower left-hand corner, a white card 3” x 3¾” has been pasted bearing the following: 'MAY 21, 1959 [stamped] | Gift [printed] Mr. Henry C. Hutchins [typed] | Collation [printed] 9 l. [typed] | Author [printed] Tennyson, Alfred Tennyson, | 1st baron, 1809-1892 [typed] | Call no. [printed] Rare Book Room [stamped] | Ip | T258 | 868La [typed]'.


This collation comprises the substantive and accidental readings in the documents listed (with corresponding symbols in order of composition or publication) that vary from the authoritative text of the poem in the Eversley Edition (1907), which Tennyson and his son annotated. As a matter of convenience and to save space, Tennyson is referred to as AT and his wife as ET. All proofs are for Macmillan's Magazine.

  • MS1 Incomplete autograph manuscript, Harvard; lacks ll. 1-25, 56-59, 124-132, 164 through part of 203, 236-239, 241-280
  • MS2 Autograph manuscript, Trinity College, Cambridge
  • MS3 ET's manuscript with AT's emendations, Yale
  • P1 Galley proof with AT's corrections, Tennyson Research Centre
  • P2 Page proof with AT's corrections, Mr. W. S. G. Macmillan
  • P3 Page proof with AT's corrections, Berg Collection, NYPL
  • P4 Page proof with Richard Clay's and George Grove's corrections, Berg Collection, NYPL; lacks the last page (ll. 271-280)
  • P5 Page proof with AT's corrections, Berg Collection, NYPL
  • P5(alt.) Alternate version of Oread passage (single line for ll. 188-191) and l. 192, tipped in on P5
  • P6 Page proof with printer's query and AT's signature, Berg Collection, NYPL
  • M Macmillan's Magazine, 18 (May, 1868), [1]-9
  • S Every Saturday, 5 (May 2, 1868), 575-576
  • G The Holy Grail and Other Poems. London: Strahan and Co., 1870
  • G(A) The Holy Grail, and Other Poems. Boston: Fields, Osgood, & Co., 1870

The methods used for recording both textual variations and alterations in the manuscripts are those detailed by Fredson Bowers in his article, 'The Transcription of Manuscripts: The Record of Variants', SB, 29 (1976), 212-264, and exemplified in his apparatus for the definitive ACLS-Harvard edition of William James's Works (1975- ). For ease in comparing the variant readings, as many alterations in the manuscripts as possible have been included in the list of variants. An ampersand for 'and', 'ye' for 'the', and abbreviations for 'which', 'should', and 'could' have not been considered variants; but where a variant in word, phrase, or line in a manuscript involves such a convention or abbreviation, it is reproduced as written.

The number introducing each recorded variant is the line number of the Eversley Edition (and Ricks, pp. 1206-1217). Numbers separated by a slanting stroke, for example 50/51, indicate a line or lines, as the case may be, that existed in an antecedent text but not in Eversley. The lemma—the reading to the left of the bracket—is that of the authoritative text. The rejected variants follow in chronological order to the right of the bracket. If the sigil—the symbol for one of the collated texts listed above—does not appear to the right of the bracket, the reading in that state of the text is the same as that of Eversley, except for the passages and the final page that are lacking in MS1 and P4 respectively. To warn of this exception, the inclusive lines are recorded in the proper sequence numerically as lacking. Also in P1 the


Page 179
beginning word that has been torn away in lines 1 and 2 is so designated. Readings resulting from AT's, George Grove's, or Richard Clay's alterations of the printed text in proofs are distinguished by AT, G, or C and a slanting stroke before the proof number (i.e., AT/P1, G/P4, C/P4, for example). On P2, where the poet, after correcting the Oread passage extensively, then deleted it and inserted the bowdlerized version, the two stages of alteration have been designated AT1 and AT2. When autograph alterations of the printed text result in the reading of the authoritative text (as they do in many instances), the sigil is placed out of chronological order immediately to the right of the bracket for emphasis and to save space. The alteration is easily understood by comparing the printed variant in the designated proof with the lemma. In some instances, the reading of the lemma existed early in a manuscript(s), became altered (deliberately or through error in copying or typesetting), and then was reverted to. For clarity in these circumstances, the sigil or sigils for the text in which the early reading is the same as the lemma is shown chronologically immediately to the right of the bracket and before the symbol for AT's or another's alteration of a printed text or before any variant reading if (as in a few cases) the return to the original reading is not the result of proofreading marks on one of the extant proofs. Since AT added lines extensively to the poem through the first stages of page proof (and there were occasional errors of omission), a number of words or lines do not exist in the complete passages of MS1 and in MS2, MS3, P1, P2 and P3; and the full lines on the Oread are of course omitted in P5(alt.), P6, and M. Such words or lines are accounted for by omit, followed by the appropriate sigil. A superscript 1 or 2 is used to identify one or the other of two identical words in the same line. A vertical stroke | indicates the ending of a line. A sigil, a dash, and another sigil (for example, MS1-P1) are used as a means of saving space to signify that a variant reading exists in MS1 and all subsequent states in which the line appears through the Lincoln galley proof (i.e., MS1, MS2, MS3, and P1).

Two arbitrary symbols have been employed in this Historical Collation: the section mark (§) and the double dagger (‡). The section mark indicates that the variant involves wholly or in part an alteration in a MS, the description of which does not appear in the Alterations in the Manuscripts and has been included instead in the Historical Collation. The double dagger indicates that the variant in the MS is part of an alteration not easily transferable to the Historical Collation, the details of which can be found in the Alterations in the Manuscripts.

When alterations in the MSS are included in the Historical Collation, the processes of revision are described in square brackets. The quoted text outside a revision in brackets is always the final version in a corrected MS. When no words precede the description of an alteration in a MS, the description applies to the lemma. Some readings are reproduced formulaically. In order to specify the words in the text which are affected by the description in square brackets, an asterisk (*) appears before the first word to which the description in square brackets applies. When there is no asterisk, the description in square brackets applies to all the words of a reading preceding the brackets, or the affected word or words are within the square brackets along with the description—usually the record of a deletion.

In descriptions of alterations in the MSS, over means a correction by writing over a letter(s) of a word on the original line; interlined (abbreviated intrl.) means added between lines. Above (ab.) positions an interlineation with respect to a word or words in a line which are usually deleted but sometimes are not actually crossed out (del. and undel.). Inserted (insrt.) refers to an addition in the margin or on the verso of a facing leaf. No distinction has been made between interlineations and insertions made with or without a caret or a guideline. In order to focus upon the alteration achieved rather than the means of achieving it, the general description altered from (alt. fr.) has been used frequently. Other abbreviations are as follows: aft. for after, bef. for before, bel. for below, transpd. for transposed, sg. qt. for single quote, and questn. mk. for question mark.


Page 180
  • (No heading and date)] MS1-P1; MACMILLAN'S MAGAZINE. | May, 1868. P2-M; Every Saturday, | May 2, 1868.] [upper left-hand corner] LUCRETIUS. [center of page] S
  • LUCRETIUS.] omit MS1-P1; ˜, P2-6
  • 1-25 Lucilia . . . cried:] lacking MS1
  • 1 Lucilia] Lucilia MS2-3; lacking P1
  • 2 Her] lacking P1
  • 4 tho'] though S
  • 4 lov'd] loved MS2-G(A)
  • 6 field,] AT/P3; ˜; MS2-P3
  • §7 master] Master [insrt. bel. del. insrt. 'husband' for del. 'Master' ab. del. 'Poet'] MS2
  • 12 three∧hundred] ˜-˜ MS2-3
  • §13 Teacher,] omit [del. 'writer' ab. del. 'Master'] MS2; teacher∧ MS3-P3; ˜∧ AT/P2-3-G(A)
  • 14 brook'd] brooked S
  • 15 some] AT/P2-3; a MS2-P3
  • 16 brew'd] brewed S
  • 16 philtre] philter S, G(A)
  • ‡18 this, . . . times,] ˜∧ . . . ˜∧ MS2
  • ‡18 drink,] C/P4; ˜∧ MS2-P4
  • 19 destroy'd] destroyed S
  • §20 labour] [ab. del. 'workings'] MS2; labor S, G(A)
  • 21 And tickling] AT/P2-3; Tickled MS2-P3
  • 21 brain within the man's] AT/P2-3, G/P4; part of the brain, and [& MS2] made MS2-P3; within the man's brain P4
  • 22 Made havock] AT/P2-3; Havock MS2-P3; ˜ havoc S, G(A)
  • 22 check'd] checked S
  • 23 loathed] loath'd MS2-M, G, G(A)
  • 23 himself;] AT/P2-3; ˜∧ MS2-P3
  • 25 mock'd] mocked S
  • 25 calm,] ˜∧ MS3-S
  • 25 cried:] ˜∧ MS2; ˜, MS3-M; ˜,— S; ˜; G; ˜.' (sg. qt. an error) G(A)
  • 26 ¶ 'Storm (extra space betweens)] no ¶ ∧˜ MS1-3; no ¶ "˜ P1-3; ¶ "˜ (extra space betweens) AT/P2-3-S, G(A)
  • 27 Rushing; . . . thunderbolt—] ˜, . . . ˜∧ MS1
  • 28 Methought . . . fork—] As bright as noon against the livid heaven MS1
  • 29 mountain-side,] MS2, AT/P2-3; ˜-˜∧ MS1,3-P3
  • 29 show'd] showed S
  • 31 Blanching] Flashing MS1
  • 32 yester-eve] yestereve MS1
  • 33 'Storm, (extra space betweens)] ∧˜∧ (no extra space betweens) MS1-P1, S; ∧˜∧ (extra space betweens) P2-4; ∧˜, (extra space betweens) C/P4-M; "˜, (extra space betweens) G(A)
  • 33 1dreams,] MS1, C/P4; ˜∧ MS2-P4, S
  • 33 holy] omit MS1
  • 33 Gods,] MS1 C/P4; ˜∧ MS2-3; gods, P1-4, S
  • 33 2dreams!] MS2-P1, AT/P2, C/P4; ˜, I thought MS1; ˜∧ P2-4; ˜, S
  • 34-36 For . . . seem'd] omit MS1
  • 34 waken'd] wakened S
  • 34 Perchance∧] AT/P3; I think MS2-P3; ˜, AT/P2
  • 35 come] AT/P2-3; chance MS2-P3
  • 36 seem'd] seemed S
  • 37 Nature;] Nature— MS1
  • 38 Crack'd;] MS2-3, AT/P3; ˜, MS1; Cracked; P1-3, S
  • 39 universe,] AT/P2-3; ˜∧ MS1-P3, S
  • 40 inane,] AT/P2-3; ˜∧ MS1-P3
  • 43 For ever] For ever & for ever MS1; for-ever S, G(A)
  • 43 mine,] ˜— MS1
  • 43 it—] ˜∧ MS1, G(A)
  • 44 dog] hound MS1
  • §46 function of the woodland] woodland ['office' del.] function MS1
  • 46 next!] ˜, ye Gods— MS1
  • 47 I thought] It seemed MS1
  • ‡47 Sylla] Sulla MS1
  • 48 rainlike] rain-like MS3
  • 48 earth,] AT/P2-3; ˜∧ MS1-P3
  • 49 dash'd] struck MS1; dashed S
  • 49 meadow,] ˜∧ MS1-2
  • 50 dragon warriors] AT/P2-3; warriors MS1-P3
  • 50 Cadmean] MS1-2; G/P4; Cadmeän MS3; Cadmeän, P1-4, S
  • 50 teeth,] AT/P2-3; ˜∧ but girls MS1; ˜: for these MS2-P3
  • 50/51 Niddin[g] MS1
  • 51 For . . . me,] omit MS1
  • 51 For these] AT/P2-3; omit MS2-P3
  • 51 me] AT/P2-3; ˜, but girls MS2-P3
  • 52 But girls, Hetairai,] AT/P2-3; Naked Hetierie MS1; Naked Hetairai, MS2-P3
  • 52-53 curious . . . animalisms,] omit MS1
  • 53 animalism,] AT/P2-3; ˜∧ MS2-P3
  • 53 vile . . . that] such . . . wh MS1
  • 54 mulberry-faced Dictator's orgies] ˜∧˜ Dictator revell MS1
  • 55 Than] That (error) MS1

  • 181

    Page 181
  • 55 Gods.] ˜: MS2
  • 56-59 And . . . by day?] lacking MS1
  • 56-57 yell'd . . . yell'd] yelled . . . yelled S
  • 60 ¶ 'Then, (extra space betweens)] no ¶ ∧˜∧ MS1; ¶ ∧˜, (no extra space betweens) MS2-P1, S; ¶ ∧˜, (extra space betweens) P2-M; ¶ "˜, (extra space betweens) G(A)
  • 60 then,] AT/P3; omit MS1; ˜∧ MS2-P3
  • 60 utter] a sudden MS1
  • 60 gloom] ˜ at last MS1
  • 60 the breasts] omit MS1
  • 61-64 and . . . and] omit MS1
  • 61 sword] ˜, AT/P2
  • 62 direct,] AT/P2, C/P4; ˜∧ MS2-P4, S
  • 63 pierce,] MS2, AT/P3; ˜∧ (error) MS3-P3
  • §64 beauty;] ˜∧ MS2; [semicolon added] MS3
  • §64 stared,] ˜∧ MS1-2; [comma added] MS3
  • 64 fire,] AT/P2-3; ˜∧ MS1-P3
  • 65 The . . . Ilion,] AT/P2-3, omit MS1-P3
  • 66 them,] ˜∧ MS2
  • 66 scorch'd] MS1-3, AT/P3; scorched P1-3, S
  • 66 that] till MS1
  • 67 ¶ 'Is (extra space betweens)] no ¶ ∧˜ MS1; ¶ ∧˜ (no extra space betweens) MS2-P1, S; ¶ ∧˜ (extra space betweens) P2-M; ¶ "˜ (extra space betweens) G(A)
  • 67 thine,] ˜∧ MS1
  • 68 Because] Beccause (error) S
  • §69 ev'n] [ab. undel. 'evn' over 'e'en'] MS3; even S
  • 69 offer'd] MS1-3, AT/P3; offered P1-3, S
  • 70 proœmion] MS1-3, AT/P2-3; proæmion (error) P1-3
  • 71 field,] ˜∧ MS1
  • 73 'Deity (extra space betweens)] ∧˜ (no extra space betweens) MS1-P1, S; ∧˜ (extra space betweens) P2-M; "˜ (extra space betweens) G(A)
  • §73 worshippers.] worshipers [first 'p' in 'worshippers' del.]: MS1
  • 74 profanely. Which] ˜: which MS1
  • 76 who,] ˜∧ MS1-S, G(A)
  • ‡77 envy,] ˜∧ MS1
  • ‡77 hate∧] ˜, MS2
  • ‡77 pity,] ˜∧ MS1-3
  • ‡77 scorn,] C/P4; ˜∧ MS1-P4
  • 78 great] quiet MS1
  • 79 center'd in] compast with MS1; centred ˜ S; centr'd ˜ G(A)
  • 80 'Nay (extra space betweens)] ∧˜ (no extra space betweens) MS1-P1, S; ∧˜ (extra space betweens) P2-M; "˜ (extra space betweens) G(A)
  • 80 canst] can'st MS1-2, AT/P2, P4-G; cans't (error) MS3-P3
  • 81 touch'd] touched S
  • 84 steaming slaughter-house of] shambles of eternal [underline bel. 'ern' of 'eternal' to indicate repetition of 'eternal' in l. 79] MS1
  • 85-92 'Ay . . . Gods,] ∧But surely thee I meant not when I took MS1
  • 85 'Ay (extra space betweens)] ∧˜ (no extra space betweens) MS2-P1, S; ∧˜ extra space betweens) P2-M; "˜ (extra space betweens) G(A)
  • ‡87 hers,] AT/P3; ˜∧ MS2-P3
  • 88 neat-herds] AT/P3; goatherds MS2-P3
  • 88 abroad;] AT/P2; ˜: MS2-P5, S
  • 92 Gods,] ˜. (error) S
  • 93 Poet-like] Poetlike MS1-2
  • 93 called] MS1; call'd MS2-3
  • 94 Calliope∧] Calliope, MS1
  • 94-95 to . . . take] omit MS1
  • 95 Ay,] ˜∧ MS2-3
  • 95 Kypris] AT/P5; Kupris MS2-P5
  • 96 That . . . to . . . forth] that . . . | To . . . ˜ MS1
  • 97 The all-generating] the all-generative MS1
  • 97 and genial heat] omit MS1
  • 98 Nature,] ˜∧ MS1
  • 98 she] her heat MS1
  • 98 thro' the thick blood] the rough breasts MS1
  • 98 thro'] MS2-3; through P1-S, G(A)
  • 99 cattle,] Cattle∧ MS1
  • 99 large,] MS1-2, AT/P2; ˜∧ MS3-S, G(A)
  • 99 glad] gay MS1
  • 101 flowers:] ˜; MS1; ˜∧ G(A)
  • 103 ¶ 'The (extra space betweens)] no ¶ ∧˜ (extra space betweens) MS1; ¶ ∧˜ (no extra space betweens) MS2-P1, S; ¶ ∧˜ (extra space betweens) P2-M; ¶ "˜ (extra space betweens) G(A)
  • 103 Gods!] ˜? MS1
  • 103 my] my MS1
  • 104 Unfinish'd] Unfinished S
  • §104 if] MS1; if MS2; ['if' underlined] MS3
  • 104-113 The . . . go.] omit MS1
  • 105 wind,] AT/P2-3; ˜∧ MS2-P3
  • 107 snow,] AT/P2-3; ˜∧ MS2-P3
  • 113 1Gods,] ˜? MS1
  • 113 the] The MS1
  • 113 2Gods!] ˜? MS1, AT/P2
  • 114 atoms,] ˜∧ MS1

  • 182

    Page 182
  • 115 atomic∧ not] ˜—save that each of them | Were but one atom—˜ MS1
  • 115 dissoluable,] ˜? MS1
  • 116 Not . . . law?] Too foolish that, for MS1
  • §116 law?] ˜. MS2; [questn. mk. over period] MS3
  • 116 My master held] my great Master holds MS1
  • 117 That . . . believe.] That these are fashion'd in the form of men MS1
  • 118 footsteps . . . his,] footstep . . . ˜∧ MS1
  • 121 are, . . . deathless.] ˜∧ . . . ˜: MS1
  • 121 Meant] meant MS1-3
  • 123 Stumbles,] ˜∧ MS1
  • 124-132 'Look . . . sees;] lacking MS1
  • 124 'Look (extra space betweens)] ∧˜ (no extra space betweens) MS2-P1, S; ∧˜ (extra space betweens) P2-M; "˜ (extra space betweens) G(A)
  • 125 Sun] MS2-3, AT/P2-3; sun P2-3
  • §125 Apollo,] ˜∧ [alt. fr. 'Apollos' (error)] MS3; ˜∧ P1
  • 128 wreak'd] wreaked S
  • §130 tales] AT/P1; [alt. fr. 'toiles' (error)] MS3; toils (error) P1
  • 132 spit—] ˜, MS2-P5; ˜; S
  • §132 1he] omit MS2; [intrl.] MS3
  • 132 sees;] AT/P5; ˜, MS2-P5, S
  • 133 altho'] MS2-3, AT/P5; ˜∧ MS1; although P1-5, S
  • 133 seem,] ˜∧ MS1
  • 134 lifts] sets MS1
  • 135 feet] footstep MS1
  • 135 those] the MS1
  • 135 empurpled] impurpled S
  • 136 halls] walls (error) P4-5
  • 136 heaven;] ˜∧ MS1
  • §137 an eye] a sight MS1-2; [alt. fr. 'a sight' (ET's hand)] MS3
  • 138 pain;] ˜: MS1-3
  • 139 freezing] glazing MS1
  • §139 orb] eye MS1; [insrt. for del. 'eye'] MS2
  • 140 last;] ˜∧ MS1; ˜: MS2-S, G(A)
  • 141 fall'n] fallen MS1, S
  • 142 vain,] ˜∧ MS1
  • 144 me,] ˜∧ MS1
  • 144 altho'] although S
  • 145 Blinding,] omit MS1
  • 145 not,] ˜∧ MS1
  • 145 nor at all can tell] neither knows he whether I MS1
  • 146 Whether . . . myself,] omit MS1
  • 147 Or] Shall MS1
  • 147 says,] ˜∧ MS1-2
  • 149 he . . . holds] I . . . hold MS1
  • 150 careless,] ˜∧ MS1
  • 150 wherefore need he care] of our deeds & us MS1
  • §151 Greatly] What need I *greatly [intrl.] care MS1
  • 151 at once] omit MS1
  • 151 troubled,] ˜∧ MS1-2
  • 153 —ay,] ∧˜∧ MS1; —˜∧ MS2-3
  • 153 stone,] ˜∧ MS1-3
  • 154-155 and palsy . . . age—] omit MS1
  • §154 palsy,] ˜∧ MS2; [comma added] MS3
  • 154 death-in-life] MS2, AT/P2-3; ˜∧˜∧˜ (error) MS3-P3
  • 155 all,] ˜∧ MS1
  • 156 nakednesses,] ˜∧ MS1
  • 157 lust,] ˜∧ MS1
  • 157 unspeakable,] ˜∧ MS1
  • 158 at my hearth∧] to my house, MS1
  • §159 Not welcome,] Unwelcome, MS1; ['Not' ab. del. 'Un' of 'Unwelcome'] MS2
  • 159 miring every dish] fouling all the feast MS1
  • 160 phantom∧husks] MS1; ˜-˜ MS2-3
  • 160 done,] ˜∧ MS1
  • §161 fleeting] MS2, AT/P2-3; ['eeting' ab. undel. 'ying' of 'flying'] MS1; floating (error) MS3-P3
  • 161 thro'] through S
  • 161 universe,] ˜∧ MS1
  • 163 insanity?] ˜. MS1-S, G(A)
  • 164-203 How . . . me?] lacking MS1
  • 164 'How (extra space betweens)] ∧˜ (no extra space betweens) MS2-P1, S; ∧˜ (extra space betweens) P2-M; "˜ (extra space betweens) G(A)
  • 166 thinner, . . . thicker,] AT/P3; ˜∧ . . . ˜∧ MS2-P3
  • 167 snow, . . . in,] AT/P2-3; ˜∧ . . . ˜∧ MS2-P3
  • 169 tumult] AT/P2-3; ˜, MS2-P3
  • 169 doors,] MS2-3, AT/P2-3; ˜∧ P1-3
  • 170 down,] MS2, AT/P2-3; ˜∧ (error) MS3-P3
  • 170 they∧] ˜, MS3-G(A)
  • 171 basest,] AT/P2-3; ˜∧ MS2-P3
  • ‡173 ¶ 'Can (extra space betweens)] no ¶ ∧˜ MS2, P1-3; ¶ [marked with bracket to show indentation] ∧˜ (no extra space betweens) MS3; ¶ ∧˜ (extra space betweens) AT/P2-3-M; ¶ ∧˜ (no extra space betweens) S; ¶ "˜ (extra space betweens) G(A)
  • 179 o'er] oer MS2
  • ‡179 —ay,] ∧˜, MS2-S, G(A); —˜∧ G

  • 183

    Page 183
  • 180 men?] ˜. MS2-S, G(A)
  • 181 'But (extra space betweens)] ∧˜ (no extra space betweens) MS2-P1, S; ∧˜ (extra space betweens) P2-M; "˜ (extra space betweens) G(A)
  • 184 there?] MS2-3, AT/P2-3; ˜! P1-3
  • ‡186 through] thro' MS2-3
  • ‡186 wood,] AT/P1,3; ˜— MS2-P3
  • ‡186 quivering—] ˜, AT/P1
  • 187 Nymph] MS2, AT/P1-3; Nymphs (error) MS3-P3
  • 187 Faun;] MS2, AT/P1,3; Fauns; (error) MS3-P3; ˜— AT/P2
  • 188 Oread—] MS2, AT/P1,3, AT2/P2; ˜∧ MS3; ˜. P1-3; ˜—(AT1/P2; ˜ (AT/P5, S; ˜, P6, M
  • 188-191 how . . . peaks—] omit AT2/P2, P5 (alt.)-M
  • ‡188 how] AT/P1,3; —how (error) MS2; How MS3-P3
  • 189 slippery] MS2, AT1/P2, AT/P3; slipping (error) MS3-P3
  • 189 sides,] MS2; ˜∧ (error) MS3-P5, S
  • 190 knees∧] ˜, MS2-P5, S
  • 191 bosom-peaks—] AT/P3; ˜-˜∧ MS2; ˜∧˜— MS3, AT/P1; ˜∧˜. P1-3; ˜-˜) AT1/P2, AT/P5, S
  • 191 who] MS2, AT/P1,3, AT1/P2; Who (error) MS3-P3; and AT2/P2, P5 (alt.)-M
  • 191 runs] she ˜ AT2/P2, P5 (alt.)-M
  • 192 rest—] MS2-3, AT/P1,3, AT1/P2; ˜? P1-3
  • ‡192 1satyr,] AT/P1,5, AT1/P2; Satyr,— MS2; Satyr, AT2/P2, P5 (alt.); Satyr— MS3; ˜— P1-3; ˜; AT/P3-P5, S
  • ‡192 2a] A MS2
  • ‡192 2satyr,] AT/P1,5, AT1/P2; Satyr— MS2; ˜— MS3-P3; ˜; AT/P3-P5; Satyr, AT2/P2, P5 (alt.)
  • ‡192 see,] AT2/P2; ˜— MS2-S, G(A); ˜∧ P5 (alt.)
  • §197 his rough] AT/P2-3; with his MS2; against [ab. del. 'with'] his MS3; against his P1-3
  • 199 hate,] ˜∧ MS2
  • 199 spit,] ˜∧ MS3
  • §200 heel,] AT/P2-3; ['heel' ab. 'foot,'; 'foot' del.] MS2; ˜∧ (error) MS3-P3
  • 201 ankle-wing] ancle-wing MS2-3
  • 203 Shameless] ˜; MS2-3; ˜, P2-3
  • 203 me?] AT/P2-3; ˜: MS2-P3
  • 203 Catch] catch MS1-2
  • 203 her,] ˜∧ MS1
  • 203 goat-foot:] goatfoot! MS1; goatfoot: MS2-G(A)
  • 203 nay,] ˜∧ MS1
  • 204 , hide] omit MS1
  • 204 them,] ˜∧ MS1
  • 204 million-myrtled wilderness,] MS2, AT/P2,5; ye brakes & bushes! MS1; ˜-˜ ˜∧ (error) MS3-P5
  • 205 And cavern-shadowing laurels,] omit MS1
  • 205 hide!] AT/P2-3; omit MS1; ˜; P1-3
  • 205 wish—] AT/P5; ˜∧ MS2-P5, S
  • 206 What?—that] AT/P5; To peer MS1-P5; ˜?∧˜ S
  • 206 the bush were leafless?] AT/P5; behind the bushes, MS1; behind the laurels, MS2-P5
  • 206 whelm] mix MS1
  • 208 I know you careless] MS3-P4; AT/P5; ˜ ˜ ˜ shadows MS1; Careless, ˜ ˜ ˜ ˜ MS2, AT/P3, G/P4, P5
  • ‡208 , behold, to you∧] AT/P5; ∧ to you I call, MS1; ∧ to you∧ MS2, AT/P3, G/P4, P5; ∧ to you, to you, MS3-P3; ∧ careless, to you∧ (error) P4
  • 209 childly] G/P4; ancient MS1; chilly (error) P4, S
  • 209 wont] AT/P1, G/P4; want (error) P1, P4, S
  • 209 ancient use] custom, MS1
  • 209 I call—] call to you, MS1
  • 210 securely as yourselves—] a life as pure as yours, MS1
  • 211 No . . . monkey-spite,] final order AT/P2-3; followed l. 212 MS2-P3
  • 211 narrowing envy,] no ambition, MS1; ˜ ˜; (error) MS3
  • ‡211 monkey-spite,] covetousness∧ MS1; ˜∧ ˜, MS2; ˜-˜∧ (error) MS3
  • 212 No . . . none:] final order AT/P2-3; omit MS1; preceded l. 211 MS2-P3
  • 213-217 No . . . majesties] omit MS1
  • 213 pine∧] MS2-3, AT/P2-3; ˜, P1-3
  • 214 neighbours] neighbors S, G(A)
  • 214 grass,] AT/P3; ˜∧ MS2-P3
  • 214 take] AT/P2-3; drink MS2-P3
  • 218 Of settled, sweet,] The pure MS1
  • 218 life.] G/P4; quiet ˜— MS1; life— MS2-P4, S
  • 219 monster] monsters (error) MS3
  • 220 hands] MS1-3, AT/P2,5; hand (error) P1-5
  • 220 will,] C/P4; ˜∧ MS1-P4
  • 221 backward] MS1-3, AT/P5; backwards (error) P1-5
  • 221 his;] ˜— MS1
  • 221 and spoils] who breaks MS1

  • 184

    Page 184
  • 222 My . . . great;] The love I had of life wh was but small, MS1
  • 222 great;] AT/P3; ˜, MS2-P3
  • 223-225 For . . . grew] omit MS1
  • 226 Tired] Sick MS1
  • 227 Or] Tired MS1
  • 229 Crown'd] Crowned S
  • 229 two,] ˜∧ MS1
  • 230 And . . . fade,] omit MS1
  • 231 I,] ˜∧ MS1
  • 231 find] feel MS1
  • 231 myself,] ˜∧ MS1
  • 232 myself?—] AT/P2-3; it: thats MS1; ˜?∧ MS2-P3
  • 232 our] MS1-2, AT/P2-3; Our (error) MS3-P3
  • 232 privilege—] ˜∧ MS1
  • 233 has heart to do] cd dream of MS1
  • 233 it?] ˜∧ MS1
  • 233 And] & O MS1
  • 234 dragg'd] draggd MS1; dragged S
  • 234 thus?] ˜∧ MS1
  • 235 I;] ˜, S
  • 235 he,] ˜∧ MS1
  • 235 who] that MS1
  • 235 her∧] MS1; ˜, MS2-S, G(A)
  • 236-239 Whose . . . air,] lacking MS1
  • 237 When,] ˜∧ MS2-S, G(A)
  • 239 air,] ˜∧ MS2-3
  • §240 heart.] ˜ [alt. fr. 'breast']; MS2; ˜ [ab. del. 'breast']: MS3
  • 241-280 And . . . well!] lacking MS1
  • 242 now!] AT/P2-3; ˜: MS2-P3
  • 242 'And . . . now (spaced down a l.)] ∧and . . . ˜ (not spaced down) MS2-P3; ∧˜ . . . ˜ (spaced down a l.) AT/P2-3-S; "˜ . . . ˜ (spaced down a l.) G(A)
  • 244 Nature,] AT/P2, C/P4; ˜∧ MS2-P4, S
  • 245 man,] AT/P2; ˜∧ MS2-G(A)
  • 246 Dash] AT/P3; Strike MS2-P3
  • 246 anew] AT/P5; afresh MS2-P5
  • 247 Thro'] MS2-3; Through P1-G(A)
  • 247 more,] ˜∧ MS2-3
  • 248 flower:] ˜— MS2-S, G(A)
  • §250 Shatter'd] MS2; Shattered [alt. fr. 'shattereth' (error)] MS3; Shattered S
  • 251 pieces,—] AT/P3; ˜∧— MS2-3; ˜,∧ P1-3
  • §255 even] ev'n MS2; [ab. del. 'e'em' (error)] MS3
  • 255 long laid] C/P4; ˜-˜ MS2-P4, S
  • 257 Vanishing] MS2-3, AT/P1; Fanishing (error) P1
  • 257 2void,] ˜∧ MS2
  • 258 for ever,—] ˜ ˜∧— MS2-P3; forever, — S, G(A)
  • 258 hour,] AT/P5; ˜∧ MS2-P5
  • 260 That . . . wheel,] AT/P2-3; omit MS2-P3
  • 261 That] MS2-P3; And AT/P2-3-G(A)
  • 261 Fury's] MS2-3, AT/P1; fairy's (error) P1
  • 262 hell] Hell MS2-3
  • 264 for] MS2-3, AT/P2-3; omit (error) P1-3
  • 264 Thou,] AT/P2-3; ˜∧ MS2-P3
  • 266 Yearn'd] MS2-3, AT/P3; Yearned P1-3, S
  • 266 wisest] Wisest MS2-3
  • 266 wise,] AT/P3; Wise MS2-3; ˜∧ P1-3
  • 268 pain,] ˜∧ MS2-3
  • 271-280 I . . . well!'] lacking P4
  • 273 air.'] ˜'. MS2; ˜." P1-3, P5-S, G(A)
  • 274 With (extra space betweens)] ˜ (no extra space betweens) MS2-P1
  • 275 in,] MS2-3, AT/P2-3; ˜. (error) P1-3
  • 277 fail'd . . . shriek'd] failed . . . shrieked S
  • 279 Clasp'd, kiss'd . . . wail'd] Clasped, kissed . . . wailed S
  • ‡279 answer'd,] ˜∧ MS2-3; answered, S
  • ‡279 'Care] 'it MS2-3; "It P1-3; "˜ AT/P3, P5-S, G(A)
  • ‡279 not] AT/P3; is MS2-P3
  • ‡279 thou!] AT/P3; done∧ MS2-3; done; P1-3
  • ‡280 Thy duty] What [sg. qt. del. bef. 'What'] matters MS2; What matters MS3-P3, P5-S, G(A)
  • 280 What is duty?] what ˜ ˜? MS2-3; All is over: AT/P3, P5-S, G(A)
  • 280 Fare] fare MS2-3
  • 280 well!'] ˜.' MS2-3; ˜!" P1-3, P5-S, G(A)


All alterations in manuscripts made during the course of writing and of revision that have not previously been shown in the Historical Collation are recorded here. The medium is black ink, except for a few revisions in blue ink by AT in MS3.

The lemmata—readings to the left of the bracket—are those of the Eversley Edition


Page 185
and ordinarily represent agreement of book and manuscript. To permit condensed entries, however, in a few instances a single dagger (†) prefixed to the line reference warns the user to refer to the Historical Collation for the exact manuscript reading when it is not precisely that of the lemma or has not been specified in the descriptive part of the entry.

The use of three dots in quoted descriptions to the right of the bracket indicates ellipsis rather than the existence of dots in a manuscript. Otherwise, all entries follow the bibliographical rule that material within single quotes is cited exactly as it appears in the original document. For other conventions of descriptions of alterations, see the headnote to the Historical Collation.

  • 7 him] aft. del. 'his' MS2
  • †18 And . . . drink,] ab. del. 'This with his drink she mixt from time to time' MS2
  • 20 blood] ab. del. 'frame' MS2
  • 26 I heard] intrl. MS1
  • 29 out] bel. del. 'bare' MS1
  • †47-48 all . . . by . . . | Came] undel. first draft on fol. 1v reads 'all . . . wh . . . | Came'; final version on fol. 12 MS1
  • 66 out of] ab. del. 'from' MS1
  • †77 From . . . scorn,] insrt. for undel. 'From 1 2 & 3 envy, scorn, hate, pity & low spites' MS1
  • 77/78 'That stir the lips of slander-speaking man,' del. MS1
  • 85 2I meant] intrl.; 'at least' del. aft. 'her.' MS2
  • 87 that quiet] ab. del. 'her quiet seat in' MS2
  • †87 of hers,] intrl. MS2
  • 87 tempt] aft. del. 'clasp' MS2
  • 88 The Trojan] ab. undel. 'Anchises' MS2
  • 92 Decided fairest] ab. del. 'Pronounced the prettiest' MS2
  • 92 O ye] ab. del. 'by the' MS2
  • 96 popular] alt. fr. 'all-popular' MS1
  • 98 thro' . . . blood] insrt. for undel. 'along the blood' MS2
  • 143 thankful] aft. del. 'knowing' MS1
  • 151/152 'Who care not for them since I know for me | They care not ah what hinders me to go' del. MS1
  • 162 the long] aft. del. 'all'; 'long' intrl. MS2
  • 170 throng] aft. del. illegible false start MS2
  • 171 that] alt. fr. 'the' MS2-3
  • †173-177 'Can . . . there] insrt. for del. ¶ 'Would I could fling them off as easily | As yon great hill' MS2
  • 175 nobler] ab. del. 'lovelier' MS2
  • 178 o'er] alt. fr. 'o'vr' MS3
  • †179 —ay, and] ab. del. 'but' MS2
  • 181 in] ab. del. 'on' MS2
  • 181 garden] ab. del. 'Aventine' MS2
  • †186 Strikes . . . quivering—] ab. del. 'Stirs all the summits of the copse; & now' MS2
  • 188 And . . . delights] 'lovelier than the rest | Flies on before them.' del. aft. 'Oread—' [dash added]; '—how' ['h' over 'H'] dash added MS2
  • 191 who this way runs] ab. '—A Satyr—see — [transpd. to l. 192]' MS2
  • 192 Before the rest—] intrl. MS2
  • 192 A satyr . . . see,] 'A Satyr,' intrl. bef. '—A Satyr—see— [transpd. fr. l. 191]' MS2; 'A Satyr['n' (error) del.]—['see—' (error) del.] a satyr—see—' MS3
  • 199 abhor, spit,] ab. del. '&' MS2
  • 199 him;] semicolon added MS2
  • 199 she] bef. del. 'it seems' MS2
  • 203-234 Catch . . . thus?] undel. first draft on fol. 2 reads 'catch her, goatfoot! hide | Hide them ye brakes & bushes! do I wish | To peer behind the bushes? monkey-filth! | What Roman wd be led in triumph thus? | Or why should I that scorn this little life, | Poor little life that toddles half an hour | Crown'd with a flower or two & there ['our'? del.] an end— | Why sd I, beast-like as I feel *myself [insrt. for undel. '& am'], | Not manlike end it? That's our privilege | No beast cd do it.'; final version on fol. 4 MS1 [stet beastlike]
  • 205 laurels,] comma added MS2
  • 205 hide!] ab. del. '?' MS2
  • 208 I know] aft. del. 'Careless,' MS3
  • 208 , to you,] added aft. 'to you' MS3
  • 211 lewdness,] bef. del. 'luxury' MS2
  • †211 monkey-spite,] aft. del. 'spites' MS2; alt. fr. 'monkey spites' (error) MS3
  • 212/213 'That vex the race of slander-speaking man—' del. MS2 [stet slander-speaking hyphenated]
  • 213-216 No . . . philosophy—] insrt. MS2
  • 215 such cups] 'uch cups' ab. undel. 'so much' MS2

  • 186

    Page 186
  • 215 left] ab. undel. 'made' MS2
  • 216 Affirming] bel. del. 'Defending' MS2
  • 217 sober] ab. del. 'settled' MS2
  • 218 settled] ab. del. 'sober' MS2
  • 218 sweet] aft. comma added bef. '&' (error) del. MS3
  • 221 backward] bef. del. 'it' MS1
  • 240 Spout . . . in . . . heart.] 'Sprang . . . of . . . heart' del. MS1
  • 248 beast] aft. del. 'bird' MS2
  • 268 1one] ab. del. 'a' MS2
  • 268 2one] ab. del. 'a' MS2
  • 279 answer'd, 'Care not thou!] 'answer'd 'it is done' ab. del. 'raised his eyes & said' MS2



"A Note on the Variants of In Memoriam and Lucretius," The Library, 5th ser., 8 (1953), 269-273; "Tennyson's Lucretius," The Library, 5th ser., 20 (1965), 63-64.


Letters to Macmillan (1967), pp. 112-114. Just when Grove, who for some time had assisted David Masson, the founding editor of Macmillan's Magazine, actually succeeded him has been variously dated from 1867 to May, 1868 (see under Masson, DNB, 2nd supplement [1912], II, 583; Charles L. Graves, The Life and Letters of Alexander Macmillan [1910], p. 280; and Graves, The Life and Letters of Sir George Grove [1903], p. 156). Professor William E. Buckler argues from Masson's name's appearing as editor on volume 17 (which ends with the number for April, 1868) that he had the "decisive judgement" in the expurgation of the Oread ("Tennyson's Lucretius Bowdlerized?" RES, NS, 5 [1954], 269, n.8). In fact, on December 20, 1867, Macmillan wrote Masson to terminate his editorship. Although the publisher found the necessity of doing so "very painful," Masson's absence in Scotland (he had been elected Professor of Rhetoric and English Literature in the University of Edinburgh in 1865) made it increasingly difficult to conduct the magazine. Macmillan proposed to keep Masson on a £100 yearly retainer, in return for which he would write four or five articles. If they reached more than 50 pages, he would be paid by the page, at the rate of £2 a page for the overage. His name would be retained as editor to the end of the volume, and no one else's would then appear, though Grove would take over the editorial duties. Macmillan expressed his hope that Masson would continue a friendly interest in the magazine and would be willing from time to time to give opinions on articles and make suggestions when called upon (British Library, Add. MSS. 55842, fols. 90-92v; since all references hereafter to Add. MSS. are to letters in the archives of Macmillan and Co. in the British Library, I do not repeat their location in succeeding documentation). Although Masson's reply does not appear in the Macmillan files, he seems to have acceded to these terms. The correspondence shows that by Jan. 13, he sent Macmillan a mass of articles which he had been holding, and that Grove had the editorial authority to decide upon the contents of the February issue (Add. MSS. 55387 (2), fol. 880). In a letter of Feb. 3, 1868, to Edmund Lushington (see below), Macmillan refers to Grove as having "just taken the Editorship." There can be no question, as the present article demonstrates, that Grove was editorially responsible for "Lucretius" from beginning to end.


For permission to print from autograph material, I am indebted to the Lord Tennyson, Mr. W. S. G. Macmillan, Macmillan Administration (London and Basingstoke) Ltd., the Master and Fellows of Trinity College, Cambridge, and the authorities of the British Library, the Tennyson Research Centre Collection, the Lincolnshire Library Service, Harvard University, the Henry W. and Albert A. Berg Collection, the New York Public Library, the Astor, Lenox and Tilden Foundations, the University of Virginia, Wellesley College, and Yale University.


Hallam Tennyson, Alfred Lord Tennyson: A Memoir by His Son (1897), II, 28; hereafter cited as Memoir.


Alfred Tennyson (1949), p. 374. See also Memoir, II, 62.


Sir Charles says that Good Words "gave no less than £700 for The Victim" (Tennyson, p. 374). See below for the financial arrangements with Macmillan's.


Grove first met Tennyson in 1854, when, with a letter of introduction from his brother-in-law, George Granville Bradley (afterwards Dean of Westminster), he went to Farringford, as Secretary of the Crystal Palace, to seek an inaugural ode on the re-opening of the Palace at Sydenham. He was unsuccessful in his mission; but the poet received him cordially, and the "result . . . was the beginning of a truly delightful and valuable friendship . . ." (Graves, Grove, p. 45). At the end of 1867, Macmillan also enjoyed a cordial relationship with Tennyson of over eight years' standing. Since the publication of Poems, 1842, he had been a keen admirer of the poet, whom he met, according to Sir Charles, in Cambridge some time in September, 1859 (Tennyson, p. 320; see also Memoir, I, 442). The two were soon quite at ease with one another (see Macmillan's letter to James MacLehose in Graves, Macmillan, pp. 133-134). In launching Macmillan's Magazine, the publisher and Masson spent "'three glorious days with Tennyson' in the Isle of Wight" and received the promise of "Sea Dreams," which appeared in the second issue of the magazine, 1 (December, 1859), 191-198 (Charles Morgan, The House of Macmillan (1843-1943) [1943], p. 57). In the same issue (1, 114-115), Macmillan, under his pseudonym "Amos Yates," made a spirited defense of Maud in response to Gladstone's derogatory comments on that poem in his review article of the first four Idylls of the King, published in the Quarterly Review, 106 (1859), 454-485. In the early 60's, Tennyson was a frequenter of Macmillan's celebrated Tobacco Parliaments at 23 Henrietta St., Covent Garden. See Graves, Macmillan, p. 151, and Morgan, pp. 50-53.


In printing letters, I observe exactly the orthography and punctuation (or lack of it) in the original (or in the printed text, when the MS original is not available) with the following exceptions: I use double quotation marks for all quotations and titles in quotation marks, regularly indent paragraphs, put postscripts at the end of letters (regardless of where they actually appear), separate the "A" and the "T" of "Tennyson," which the poet often wrote together in his signature, and omit the underlining or partial underlining that sometimes occurs as a terminal flourish under Macmillan's signature. To save space, I put the letterheading address on a single line and do not reproduce publishers' full printed or embossed letterheads. The texts of Macmillan's outgoing letters derive from transcripts in his letter books. From the handwriting, it appears that in 1867-68 one or the other of two clerks in his office copied into the letter book each letter before it was posted. The paper of the letter books if of poor quality, and in some instance the ink has run and blurred badly.


The amounts paid for each poem, here first published, were omitted when the letter was printed in Letters of Alexander Macmillan, ed. George A. Macmillan (1908), pp. 236-237.


I have been unable to verify the text of the first reading, since the MS apparently has not survived in the Macmillan archives.


The poem is a variant version of "A voice spake out of the skies," finally published in The Death of Oenone, Akbar's Dream, and Other Poems (1892). See The Poems of Tennyson, ed. Christopher Ricks (1969), p. 1193. There is no reference to these lines in the Macmillan-Grove correspondence. Perhaps, since they did not publish the poem, they felt it so slight as to detract from the impact of "Wages," which they regarded highly. In addition to their remarks about "Wages" quoted above, Macmillan declared to Grove, "Tennysons poem is grand. I wish someone could write a commentary on it" (Add. MSS. 55387(2), fol. 880 [Jan. 13, 1868]). Despite the willingness expressed here to accede to Macmillan's preference for the first reading, Tennyson soon decided that "flying by" was the better one, and the text in Macmillan's followed his judgment.


The "Büchner" to which Macmillan refers is Louis Büchner, Force and Matter: Emperico-Philosophical Studies, Intelligently Rendered, ed. J. Frederick Collingwood (1864), an English translation of Friedrich Carl Christian Ludwig Büchner's Kraft und Stoff. This copy of Büchner is in the poet's library at the Tennyson Research Centre (Tennyson in Lincoln, comp. by Nancie Campbell [1971], I, 36, No. 654).


This undated letter, which is in the Berg Collection, New York Public Library, is misdated "February" in Letters to Macmillan, p. 112.


For a bibliographical description of this MS and the other MSS and proofs compared in this article, see the Bibliographical Note below. Although Paden asserts that this MS is not in Tennyson's wife's hand (p. 269, n.3), there can be no doubt that it is in her autograph, and the evidence of Tennyson's letter above is conclusive.


Since the notice does not seem to have appeared, Dasent may have refused it; but the likelihood is that, in view of Tennyson's distress over the advertisements of the poems which were published in Good Words and Once a Week, Grove never offered the announcement, or that if he did, he withdrew it.


After 1864, J. Bertrand Payne was manager of Edward Moxon & Co., the firm that had published Tennyson since 1832. See Harold G. Merriam, Edward Moxon: Publisher of Poets (1939), p. 194.


In addition to Alexander Strahan, previously identified as the publisher of Good Words, the persons to whom the letter refers are Eneas Sweetland Dallas, editor of Once a Week; Edmund Lushington, Tennyson's brother-in-law and a professor of Greek at the University of Glasgow; James T. Knowles, the architect of Aldworth, editor of the Contemporary Review and later of the Nineteenth Century; and Thomas Woolner, the sculptor.


The asterisk indicates that the word or words following it are the reading to which the description in square brackets applies. See F. Bowers, "Transcription of Manuscripts: The Record of Variants," Studies in Bibliography, 29 (1976), 212-264.


Line references in parentheses refer to the authoritative text in the Eversley Edition: The Works of Tennyson, annotated Alfred Tennyson, ed. Hallam Tennyson, 9 vols. (1907; rpt. 1908), II, 198-209.


It is possible that one of the fifteen, "heart" changed from "breast" (240), may not be an actual miscopying on Emily Tennyson's part but an alteration that the poet introduced in correcting MS3 and simultaneously made on MS2.


This line continued to cause the poet difficulty, as his corrections on the page proofs reveal. After returning to the reading of MS2, he finally perceived before "Lucretius" was published that not the carelessness of the gods was what needed emphasis but, in view of their heedlessness of man, Lucretius' recognition of the irrationality and philosophical contradiction of his actually imploring them. And thus Tennyson reached the final reading, "I know you careless, yet, behold, to you".


See Edgar F. Shannon, Jr., and Christopher Ricks, "A Further History of Tennyson's Ode on the Death of the Duke of Wellington: the Manuscript at Trinity College, Cambridge, and the Galley Proof at Lincoln," SB, 32 (1979), 125-157.


According to Hallam Tennyson's note in the Eversley Edition (II, 362-363), the change to "neat-herds" resulted from a suggestion by the classical scholar, Hugh A. J. Munro, whose edition and translation of De Rerum Natura was published in 1864 (T. Lucreti Cari de Rerum Natura Libri Sex, with a Translation and Notes, 2 vols.).


This reading is a reversion to the line as originally written in MS2 and MS3.


In an unpublished portion of a letter at Harvard to Benjamin Paul Blood, May 7, 1874, Tennyson wrote that "What is duty?" "was altered because Lucretius nowhere I think makes any mention of Duty in that sense. . . ." But the Laureate returned to the idea and the expression and even intensified it in the final version of the line in The Holy Grail volume (see below).


From the textual evidence, one must conclude that Tennyson did not return P2 to Grove or to Macmillan. Although its possession by a descendant of Alexander Macmillan may seem to suggest the contrary, the present owner's grandmother was a daughter of Sir John Simeon, Tennyson's neighbor and intimate friend on the Isle of Wight, and was the poet's goddaughter (see a letter from Mr. W. S. G. Macmillan to Sir Charles Tennyson, April 4, 1966, in the Tennyson Research Centre). Either she or her father likely received it as a memento from the author.


Several of these were added in later proofs, and a few never entered the text.


Ricks is quite right in asserting that this letter, though it is now physically with P2, cannot refer to that proof; and without the evidence of P3, his surmise that the letter applied to an anterior proof was a reasonable one (The Library, pp. 63-64).


I have disregarded the uncorrected duplicate in numbering the proofs leading to the text in Macmillan's but have described it in the Bibliographical Note. Two copies of the slip containing the alternate version of the Oread passage accompany this proof and have not been tipped in.


When Nowell-Smith printed this letter from the Berg Collection, he omitted the address, which is in black embossed letters (Letters to Macmillan, p. 114). The date is in Emily Tennyson's hand in slightly different ink from the body of the letter. She wrote "March" over her "Feb" false start. Although Masson's preference on critical grounds for the short form of the Oread may have reinforced Grove's and Macmillan's judgment, he too was aware, as he put the matter, "of what that blatant beast, the public, might say about the longer form of the passage" (see Buckler, pp. 269-270); and Ricks is certainly correct that the decision to use the alternative reading was made on grounds of squeamishness (The Library, p. 64). Malcolm Macmillan says that Charles Kingsley remonstrated with the poet "about some descriptive lines as being too warm, and tending to revive the fashion of the lesser Elizabethan dramatists," and that as a consequence they were excised (Selected Letters of Malcolm Kingsley Macmillan [1893], p. 291). This notion is manifestly in error, as is Thomas J. Wise's contention that Tennyson cancelled the full passage because of Robert Buchanan's article, "The Fleshly School of Poetry," in the Contemporary Review for October, 1871 (see Paden, p. 271, n. 3).


Although the text in Every Saturday also shows the commas after "wilderness," (204) and "hour," (258) that Tennyson added on P5, it fails to reflect a semicolon for a comma at the end of line 132 and commas for semicolons in "A satyr, a satyr," (192), which he also introduced in that proof. All three of these accidentals in Every Saturday conform to the uncorrected text of P4.


Besides these three and the three cited in the previous note, the other ten instances in which the text in Every Saturday agrees with P4 and not with P5 as corrected are the following: "Storm and what dreams ye holy gods, what dreams," for "Storm, and what dreams, ye holy Gods, what dreams!" (33), "Cadmeän" for "Cadmean" (50), "direct" for "direct," (62), "scorn" for "scorn," (77), "wish" for "wish—" (205), "life—" for "life." (218), and "will" for "will," (220). Every Saturday followed American practice in spelling ("philter", "labor", "havoc", "neighbors") and expanded all Tennyson's elisions, as in "thro'" and in the endings of past participles. Its text also varies from either proof in having a semicolon instead of a comma after "spit" (132) and a comma instead of a semicolon after "I" (235)—punctuation that may be deliberate but that more likely represents lapses by the American compositor. His "impurpled" for "empurpled" (135) is an accepted variant spelling, but "Beccause" (68) and "Gods." instead of "Gods," (92) are both typographical errors. Regrettably, no proof of "Lucretius" seems to be extant in the records of Houghton Mifflin Co., the successors of Ticknor and Fields, which are now in the Houghton Library at Harvard. I am indebted for this information to Mr. Patrick Miehe, the cataloger of these archives.


There is an uncorrected proof copy of "Lucretius" in the Beinecke Library at Yale University that has the period after the title. Since the text in substantives and accidentals (except for a missing exclamation mark at the end of 1. 279) is identical with that printed in Macmillan's, I have disregarded this state in the Historical Collation; but I have provided a complete description of it in the Bibliographical Note.


The poem by James Russell Lowell was "A June Idyl," which Macmillan's did not publish.


The Pall Mall Gazette for April 29 was the 1000th number of the paper, a milestone that the publisher and the editor celebrated with a dinner for the literary staff at the Garrick Club (see J. W. Robertson Scott, The Story of the Pall Mall Gazette [1950], pp. 175-176). Greenwood, along with John Morley, Robert Browning, Matthew Arnold, Tom Hughes, Thomas Huxley, Henry Sidgwick, and Sir Arthur Helps, was a guest at an All Fools' Day dinner given by Macmillan on April 1, 1868 (Scott, pp. 183-184). No doubt personal relationships played a part in the favorable advance coverage from the Pall Mall Gazette.


On Dec. 29, 1865, Macmillan wrote to Gladstone, "The Spectator . . . is perhaps the ablest and most influential of the weeklies" (Graves, Macmillan, p. 243). See also William B. Thomas, The Story of The Spectator, 1828-1928 (1928).


The Illustrated Times expressed the hope of "giving a few words of special notice next week" to "Lucretius" but failed to do so until May 30. By that time the poem had been "so fully criticised" by other journals, the Illustrated Times said, that it merely remarked upon the work's exhibiting "at least one example of every mannerism of the poet" and upon its remarkable "individuality of style" (12, 398).


Richard Claverhouse Jebb, later Regius Professor of Greek and one of the most distinguished scholars of his epoch, was at this time a brilliant young Classics don at Trinity College, Cambridge. Himself an "Apostle," he had met Tennyson in the previous year at a dinner party given at the Master's Lodge by the poet's college friend, William Hepworth Thompson, then the Master of Trinity (Caroline Jebb, The Life and Letters of Sir Richard Claverhouse Jebb [1907], pp. 93-94). Their acquaintance flowered in a friendship of mutual respect and regard; and in 1889 Tennyson prefaced "Demeter and Persephone" in Demeter and Other Poems with an introductory poem to Jebb. Whether Jebb's article on the historical accuracy of Tennyson's characterization of Lucretius, scheduled for publication in Macmillan's for June, was invited by Macmillan or initiated by Jebb, it seems probably to have stemmed from the reviewer in the Pall Mall Gazette, who asserted the correspondence of Tennyson's Lucretius with his Roman original but disclaimed having the space—"in a little journal like ours"—to elaborate the point. Just the thing, however, for a "scholarly" magazine like Macmillan's; and the publisher was not one to miss such an opportunity. Writing to Jebb on May 1, he inquired, "Have you done anything to your Article on Lucretius yet? We will gladly put it into type and let you make what alterations you care in it" (Add. MSS. 55388(1), fol. 312). By May 7, Jebb had sent the MS, and Macmillan assured him that he should "have proof in good time for correcting" (fol. 325). On May 12, the piece was in type; and Macmillan wrote, after seeing the first proof, urging Jebb to mention Matthew Arnold by name in his comparison of Empedocles and Lucretius (fol. 344)—a suggestion that Jebb followed. The reference to Clapham is apparently to James Knowles's house, The Hollies, Clapham Common.


The Nation, an American journal, published in New York, damned with faint praise: "'Lucretius' . . . seems tolerably successful. . . . Of the general situation the pathos is well enough set forth; not too well; not so well that the poem is at all a great one, or more than a clever, learned, well-finished one" (6 [April 30], 352-353). For this reviewer bringing in Lucilia at the conclusion saved the poem "from being quite a dull one," and he wished that Tennyson had made more of the protagonist's discovery at the end that he was the "victim really of a foolish woman and a vile drug." A single line that the Nation mentioned as metrically objectionable was one of those resulting from the compositor's errors, "And tickling the brute within the man's brain" (21). The Cosmopolitan (1865-76) was a weekly paper of news, politics, commerce, literature, art, and society, published on Saturday. No copy for May 2 or May 9 exists in British or American libraries.


The History of The Times: the Tradition Established, 1841-1884 (1939) identifies Dallas as the author (p. 483).


"A riotous confluence of water courses", "Ruining along the illimitable inane," "Hired animalisms, vile as those that made", and "All-seeing Hyperion—what you will—".


See his letter, March 2, 1868, above. Nearly a half-century ago, E. A. Osborne described a set of page proof for the Holy Grail volume, then belonging to Mr. W. A. Foyle, in which Tennyson had not yet altered the Oread passage and the last line of the poem from the readings in Macmillan's (TLS, August 25, 1932, p. 596).


There were twenty-nine alterations in accidentals from the text in Macmillan's to that in the Holy Grail volume (sixteen of them had to do with quotation marks) and ten such variations between the Holy Grail and Eversley. (See Paden for a few variants in intermediary editions between the Holy Grail and Eversley, [pp. 271-272].) "That", which was the original reading, stood until Tennyson changed it to "And" in P2 and P3, when he inserted line 260. Ricks considers "That" in Eversley to be a mistake (The Poems of Tennyson, p. 1217); and in the one-volume Macmillan edition (1913) that Hallam Tennyson edited and that incorporates the author's notes from Eversley, the text reverts to "And" (p. 164). In my textual comparisons I have, of course, disregarded Thomas J. Wise's forgery, which he described in A Bibliography of the Writings of Alfred, Lord Tennyson (1908), I, 191-192, and in The Ashley Library: A Catalogue of Printed Books, Manuscripts, and Autograph Letters Collected by Thomas James Wise (1925), VII, 129. John Carter and Graham Pollard documented this alleged state as spurious in An Inquiry into the Nature of Certain Nineteenth Century Pamphlets (1934), pp. 305-306.