We've recently rediscovered a copy of an early printed work by of one
of the most famously unprintable poets of the 17th century. John
Wilmot, 2nd Earl of Rochester (1647-1680), was notorious in the
English court for his witty, sometimes bawdy poetry, which frequently
satirized the lives of well-known court figures - even King Charles
II.
Before his death in 1680, only a handful of Rochester's poems appeared
in print. The two poems by Rochester that appear in our copy of A
Collection of Poems, Written upon Several Occasions, by Several
Persons (London: Hobart Kemp, 1672) are the third appearance of
Rochester's poetry in print and the first publication of his love
elegies. In Kemp's compilation, both of Rochester's poems are titled "To Celia," but in modern editions they are known as "The Advice," and "The Discovery."
Also appearing in this miscellany is George Etheridge's "The Imperfect Enjoyment," which is titled identically to one of Rochester's most famous lyrics. Rochester's poem on the theme of premature ejaculation, unlike Etheridge's, was considered unprintable for centuries.
Rochester's poetry made its rounds through the English court almost
exclusively in manuscript form, which means that our recent find is
both quite rare and an excellent example of how scribal and print
publication coexisted long after the invention of the printing press.
Longhand copies, made either by Rochester himself, his friends, or
professional scribes, meant that poems could circulate quickly and
discreetly. At least one of these manuscript copies found its
way to Kemp, who likely included it in this collection of poems
without notifying Rochester (or paying him for his work).
Kemp never names the "several persons" whose works make up his
miscellany; we realized the poems were Rochester's only because a
previous owner inked in the authors' names at the end each work. A
quick check with a modern critical edition confirmed the attribution.
Ironically, because the surviving manuscript sources are sometimes conflicting and often ambiguous, the authorship of some poems attributed to Rochester is still contested.
Friday, June 29, 2012
Tuesday, June 26, 2012
Whose Bison?
We start our story today not in Rauner but looking at the first annual report of the American Bison Society, published in 1908. The frontispiece is a watercolor painting of, not surprisingly, an American bison, attributed in the list of illustrations to Maxfield Parrish. However, in Dartmouth’s copy of the report, Parrish’s name has been inked out. Curiously, it is also inked out on the e-version one can find on various online sites. Is there some question about Parrish having painted the bison? Referring to the papers of Maxfield Parrish held in Rauner, I find no correspondence with the American Bison Society, nor with Ernest Baynes, the Society’s secretary.
Parrish’s papers include over 40 boxes of glass negatives and slides, images of people and animals, trees and rocks, houses and carts, used by the artist as cooperatively-immobile models for his work. In one box is a glass slide of a bison. Although the background differs between painting and slide, the bison depicted is clearly the same animal, down to the creases in his mane, the angle of his tail, and the light spot on his hip. If this is Parrish’s bison photo, doesn’t it seem likely that he painted the frontispiece?
Of course, also within Parrish’s papers is a scrapbook of photographs taken by Ernest Baynes to illustrate his lectures on wild animals. He had given the scrapbook to Parrish for his children to enjoy. And, yes, the same bison photo is in this album.
Did Parrish use Baynes’ photo as the model for his bison painting? Was Ernest Baynes also an artist? Why is the frontispiece attribution to Parrish inked out in copies of the American Bison Society first report?
It’s not always just Cool At Rauner; sometimes it is also mysterious.
Annual Report of the American Bison Society, 1908: Storage 596.9 U5 A512a
Glass slide of a bison, Papers of Maxfield Parrish, ML-62, Box 66
Ernest Baynes’ scrapbook of photographs, Papers of Maxfield Parrish, ML-62, Box 31
Parrish’s papers include over 40 boxes of glass negatives and slides, images of people and animals, trees and rocks, houses and carts, used by the artist as cooperatively-immobile models for his work. In one box is a glass slide of a bison. Although the background differs between painting and slide, the bison depicted is clearly the same animal, down to the creases in his mane, the angle of his tail, and the light spot on his hip. If this is Parrish’s bison photo, doesn’t it seem likely that he painted the frontispiece?
Of course, also within Parrish’s papers is a scrapbook of photographs taken by Ernest Baynes to illustrate his lectures on wild animals. He had given the scrapbook to Parrish for his children to enjoy. And, yes, the same bison photo is in this album.
Did Parrish use Baynes’ photo as the model for his bison painting? Was Ernest Baynes also an artist? Why is the frontispiece attribution to Parrish inked out in copies of the American Bison Society first report?
It’s not always just Cool At Rauner; sometimes it is also mysterious.
Annual Report of the American Bison Society, 1908: Storage 596.9 U5 A512a
Glass slide of a bison, Papers of Maxfield Parrish, ML-62, Box 66
Ernest Baynes’ scrapbook of photographs, Papers of Maxfield Parrish, ML-62, Box 31