Complete Works of Robert Browning Vol 03
zyxwvutsrqpo
zyxwvuts
zyxwvutsrqponm
zyxwvutsrqp
.. , .?,',
m:.*
'V'
THE COMPLETE WORKS OF ROBERT k W N I N G j C ; VOLUME 111
i
Voriont
qiidings
Annototions
zyxwvu
E D I T O R I A LB O A R D
zyxwvutsrq
D
zyxwvuts
PARK
HONAN
W A R N E RB A R N E S
V O L U M E 111
'
O H I O U N I V E R S I T YP R E S S
A T H E N S ,O H I O
...
111
1971
zyxwvutsr
zyxwvutsrq
zyxwvut
Copyright o 1971by Ohio University Press
Library of Congress Catalog Card Number:68-18389
ISBN 82 14-74-6
All rights reserved
Printed in the United Statesof America
iv
CONTENTS
Page Number
vii
PREFACE
THREV
E OLUME
TABLEOFEDITIONSREFERREDTO
IN
zyxwvu
zyxwvutsrq
zyxwvutsr
zyxw
zyxwvutsrq
xxviii
Page Number
in Original
Edition
P I P P AP A S S E S
Introduction
Part I. M o r n i n g
Part 11. Noon
Part 111. Evening
P a r t IV. Night
KINGVICTORANDKINGCHARLES
First Year, 1730”
I
Part Victor.King
PartVictor.
King
I1
Second Year, 1731Part
Charles.
King
I
Part
Charles.
King
I1
13
3
23
41
58
4
8
IO
72
13
89
I02
8
125
142
159
ESSAY O N C H A T T E R T O N
V
5
13
17
zyxwvutsrq
zyxw
zyxwv
zyxwvutsrq
D R A R I A T I CL Y R I C S
Cavalier Tunes
Marching Along
Give a Rouse
Boots and Saddle
M y Last Duchess
Count Gismond
I n c i d e n t of t h e F r e n c h C a m p
T h e Soliloquy of the Spanish Cloister
In A Gondola
Artemis Prologizes
Waring
Rude1 to the Lady of T r i p o l i
,
Cristina
Johannes Agricola in Meditation
Porphyria’s Lover
Through the ,Metidja to Adb-el-Kadr
T h e P i e d P i p eof
r Hamelin
IV
V
197
199
200
20 1
“03
PO9
21 1
21-4
22-4
228
237
“S9
24 2
24 5
3
3
3
4
4
5
6
7
9
10
12
12
13
13
14
14
zyxwvutsrqpo
T H E R E T U R N O F T H E D R U S E S
Act I
Act I1
Act 111
Act
Act
E D I T O R I A L .N O T E S
P i p p a Passes
King Victor and King Cl~arles
Essay o n C h a t t e r t o n
Dramatic Lyrics
T h e R e t u r n of the Druses
247
249
27 1
285
299
312
325
34 3
352
3 64
S 68
387
C U M U L A T I V
I NE D E
O
TX
IF T L E S
396
CUMULATIVEINDEXOFFIRSTLINES
397
vi
3
6
10
13
16
PREFACE
zyxwvuts
zyxwv
zyxwvutsr
zyxwv
zyxwvuts
zyxwvuts
zyxwv
This edition of the works of Robert Browning is intended to be
complete. 1t is expected to run to thirteen volumes andwill contain:
I . T h e full contents of the first editions of Browning's work, arranged in chronological order. T h e poems included in Dramatic Lyrics,
DramolicRomances and I-yrics, and M e n a n d Il'omen appear in the
order of their first publication rather than the order in which Browning
rearranged them for later publication.
2. All prefaces. dedications,andadvertisementswhichBrowning
wrote for his o w n works or for those of Elizabeth Barrett Browning and
others.
3. T h e twoknownprose
essays whichBrowningpublished:the
review of a book on Tasso,generallyreferredtoas
"The Essay on
Chatterton," and the preface for a collection of letters supposed to have
been written by Percy Bysshe Shelley, generally referred toas "The Essay
on Shelley."
4. T h e front matter and the table of contents of each of the collected editions (1849, 1863, 1868, 1888-89a, and 1889) which Browning
himself saw through the press. T h e table of contents will include both
the pagination of the first edition and of this edition.
5. Poems by Browning published during his lifetime but not collected by him.
6. Unpublished poems by Browning which have come to light since
his death.
7. John Forster's Thomcrs Wentwoylh, Earl of Styafford to which
Browning contri1)utetl significantly, though to whatprecise extent so far
cannot be determined.
8. Variants from secondary materials (see section six of this preface).
11
GENERAL T E X I U A L
PRINCIPLES: COPY-IEXT A N D V A R I A N T S
It is increasingly recognized that methods of editing nineteenthcentury textsneed to be reexamined and probably revised. T h e o l d
vii
fasI1ionetl notion that a nineteenth- or twentieth-century text could be
simply reprintet1 from either thefirst or last edition is no longer tenable.
Recentexamination of the works of Hawthorne,hlelville,Twain.
Cooper, M i l l antl others, for example, reveal problems different from
those arising from texts of earlier centuries, antl also differing problems
among recent writers which distinguish any one from the others.
Before we published Volume One of this edition, and after three
years of intensive study of both the specific problems connected with
Browning’s texts and the adequacy of prevailing theory to solve them,
we arrived at certain basic principles which we felt would produce an
authoritative, useful edition of Browning’s work. We recogniLetl at that
time, however, that after further practical experience with the text and
with new information that would undoubtedly
become available, we
might want to elaborate upon and further document our initial statement of texttlal principles. We now feel that the time has come for a
restatement. We are convinced that the principlesancl methods outlined
in Volume One are basically sound. We will attempt here, however, to
clarify any vagueness which might have existed in
our original effort
andtoprovideadditionalevidencewhich,
we believe. will further
increase the reasonablenessof our choices ancl procedures.
0111
first
- problem was to select an authoritative text, ancl to tleteri t . We have
mine what was and what was not a legitimate variant to
manuscripts for nineteen of Browning’s thirty-four book publications.
Others may become available during the time we are working on this
edition.None,
however,with
the possibleexception
of h o k ! n d o ,
published on the day of Browming’s death, can be said to represent the
author’s final intentions. Each of Browming’s workswent througha
series of editions during his lifetime antl each was revised by Browning
himself.If, indeed,themanuscriptand
each successive edition were
under Browning’s control and if i t can be established that in all probability thechanges macle ineach were his own,then eachrepresents
Browning’s final decision atthetime,andmust
be consideredasa
possible copy-text.Thus the establishment of authorial control becomes
the central concern of the editors. T h a t Browning did exercise control
over the publication of his works we shall demonstrate in due course.
Clearly in thecase of a poet who was revising his work overa period
first
of more than fifty years neither the original manmcript nor the
edition published from i t can meet the accepted
requirements for the
copy-text. Nor would any one text, producedby a process of emendation
and conflation, result in a single text more representative than any one
we now have of what might be called the “real” Browning. To attempt
to-construct such a text would indicate not editorial responsibility, but
flagrant violation of the editorial principle that the author’s own decisions are, to the extent they are discernible, to be respected. Indeed, the
zyxw
...
Vlll
zyx
zyxwvutsrqp
zyxwv
zyxwvuts
zyxwvu
zyxwvu
zyxwvutsr
zyxwvu
position we found ourselves in-that of
producing n text carrying the
authority of ( 1 ~ 7 author-forced us
to reconsider the commonly accepted
understanding of the terms ( e x ( and nzt/hol-.
T o o often both text and author are considered as static entities,
Platonic archetypes. We do not have space here to consider fully
the
philosophical implications of such an assumption and mustof necessity
restrict ourselves to ;I brief statement of a more practical nature. For
thoseinterested, we suggest that they read Morse Peckham’sarticle
“Reflections on the Foundationsof Textual Criticism: Human Behavior
Proof I (1971). Foraworkthat
variesin a
andBetterEditions,”
series of documentsandeditions,
each havingauthorialauthority,
clearly there is no such empirical entity asl h c text. Indeed, graspof this
simple fact raises questions about the authorhimself. Which author-r
the author at whichstage in the process-is meant? Upon whatbasis can
we ascribe greater authenticity to one than to the others?
T h e young
Browning who wrote P(1lrline in 1832, the maturing poet who revised i t
in I 863 and 1868, and the old man who put i t in final form in 1888 and
1889 differ greatly. Each of these editions represented Browning’s final
decisions as he understood himself at the time. Each has its own authori t y , representingtheauthor
as heexisted
atthatparticular
time.
Clearly. to reduce the Browning of those diverse stages to a static entity
renders him noless an artificial construction than to reduce a numberof
versions of a work to a similar artificially constructed single text. Neither of such constructions canbe regarded as an empirical entity.
Our focus shifts, necessarily, from the t e x t and the nulhor considered as static metaphysical entities to theprocess of creating and editing
involved in the compilation of a series of documents; and concern about
the transmission of the text is redirected to the problem of understanding the character of the decisions by which the successive and varying
versions of the work came to be.
It follows, therefore, that we are concerned more about authorial
function andeditorial function thanabout nztlhol- and edilol-. Any
and he
writer’s work consists of two processes: hegeneratesawork,
corrects or edits i t by balancing his current conceptions of the coherence
of what he has written, and his grasp of the conventions applicable to
the kind of discourse he is composing as they then obtain and as he
understands them. T h e two functions are not necessarily isolated and
sequential. T h a t is, he does not generate a statement once and then
forever aftermerely edit it. T h e text itself remainsfluid,subjectto
continuous recreation. T h e manuscript that goes to the printer for the
first edition, no doubt, already represents a series of generations and
revisions; likewise, the marked copy for each subsequent edition may
and probably does represent both editing
and recreation. T h e second
and subsequent editions of Pauline, for example, containing as they do,
zyx
ix
material which not only clarifies and corrects but elaborates upon antl,
in some cases, changes the meaning of the original. represent more than
editing. Following are characteristic examples of genuinely substantive
changes that Browning madei n the first edition:
zyxw
zyxw
zyxw
zyxwvutsrqpo
T h e cumulative impact of numerous such small changcs have
;I profound effect upon the meaning of the revised poem.
This process o f revision Browning continued throughout his life.
One of the most curious alterations occurred i n his revision of Pcrwrcrlsus. In 1835, lines 649650 of Part T w o read:
I n 1849, Browningexpantledthis
passage to inclutleastatement
of
belief i n the Christian doctrine of Incarnation which ratlic;dly altered
the meaning of the original:
zyxwvuts
zyxwvu
zyx
I n 1863,Browning restored the original reading, changing only capitalization and punctuation.
T h e inspirationto place Pompilia's rescue on St.George's Day
came after the first draft of Th(7 Ri?lg n n t l ll7e Book was written and is
recorded as a revision on the manuscript that went to the printer. Other
X
zyxwvut
zyxw
significant changes in the text of this work suggest that the process of
creation continued long after the first edition was pu1,lishetl. For the
second edition of 1 8 7 2 he atldetl seventeen new lines antl made huntlretls
of changes i n both wording antl punctuation, many of which went far
beyondthe scope of nlel-e editing. For the final editions i n 1888 ant1
again in 1889he made still other changes.
It appears to us, therefore, that in exercising his authorial-etlitorial
functions the author's basis for his activity is continually changing. and
may continuetochangethroughout
his life. His grasp of boththe
coherence of his work antl of the convention^ may i~nprove ortletel-iorate; he may come t o feel that the conventions are either more or
less
binding 011 him. Author. then, as we use the term, refers not to ;I stable
entity but to an unstable antl continuously innovating continuum.
We recognize, of course,thatindivitlualsotherthanthe
author
exercise, directly or indirectly, an editorial function. Sometimes, more
common in the past thnn now, their intervention was direct and tlecisive. I n thehistory of printing,thecompositor, the printer.andthe
copyreaderhave been responsible for vari;mts, and insofar as such
variants reflect a grasp of the coherence ofrhework
and of current
conventions, they cannot be classified as errors. Nevertheless. they do not
have authorial authority and inpractice m u s t betlistinguislletlfrom
those known to derive fromthe author himself. An error, i n contrast, is a
variantwhich self-evidently tla~nagesthecoherence of thetext and
departs from the conventions, a s the textual critic himself understands
both factors as they were at work in the historical situation from which
the work emerged. T h e history of printing has moved in the direction of
trying to limit printers' errors, to train composito~-s to set only what is
before them, and to restrict the copyreader to the detection of errors by
requiring him to refer questionable variants to the editor or author.
Botherrorsandarbitrarychanges,originatingotherthanwiththe
author, cannotbe regarded as legitimate parts of the text.
There is also the matter of house styling whichmay induce clmnges
for which the author is not responsible, or only nominally so. The extent
to which house stylingis reflected in Browning's poetry willbe discussed
later. Still another kind of editorial assistance is that of the professional
copyreader or the fkiend who reads the manuscript and suggests changes
in i t . T o what extent do changesso made have authority? T h e question
is a delicate one, almost incapable of i ~ x f u t a b l eanswer. If the author
has no opportunity I O reject or if he accepts the changes perfunctorily
their 5t;ttus is dubious. If, however. the evitlence indicates clearly that he
was free to accept or reject them and cloes one or the other after careful
deliberation, the decision nlust be regal-(led as his 0 ~ 7 1 .
At this point we may summarize. All changes i n the text which are
zyxwvu
zyx
zyxwvutsr
zyx
xi
zyxwvuts
zyxw
zyxwvuts
zyxwvutsrqp
zyxwvu
not obvious crrors a n c l for which the author hiniself is responsible are to
be consideredauthoritative and accepted as legitimate pal.ts ofan
authoritative tcxt. This eliminates arbitrary changes
by iinyone other
than the author. hut includes those which nlight have originatctl with
someone other than the author but deliberately accepted b y him. This
principle provides the basis both for the selection of the copy-test and
for the recordingof variants.
We question the tllcory that automatically regards a l l spelling ; ~ n d
punctuation as accidentals. t h a t is, as mattersaffectingtheformal
prescntation of ;I text but not its meaning. T o he genuinely accidental a
variant must be one that i n uo wtry alters the meaning of the test. On
the other hand, anything-word, syntax,
punctuation, typography. for
example-that might affect thc meaning must be considered sulxtantive. Likclvise anything which affects the phonic dmracter of the line
must be reg:ded a s sul,stantivc.
Spelling can delay the recognition of;^ semantic function, hut if the
current stantlartls of spelling can be unequivocably substituted. then i t
is trulyaccidental, and s o with word divisions antl the likc. Spclling
may. however, alter thc meaning of ;I poem b y distorting the intcntletl
rhythm or sound pattcrn of a line, antl in such a case, motlet-nization
would be 21 violation of thc author's intention. N o simple application of
a theorywhichregards
spellingautomatically as anaccidental is acceptable to a sensitive editor of poetic texts.
Punctuation is still A different matter, however. Whatcver its meaning may be-and this is a matter very little unclerstootl-e~eryone feels
that it is nleaningful. Punctuation, under which we include paragraphing, does not mcrcly affcct the meaning b u t is part of the meaning. One
reason is that punctuation is at least i n part an attempt to record the
character of junctures in the spoken language. Since Browning's mature
poetic style is tar cloher to the spoken language than is norlnal expository prose antlmuchotherpoetry,punctuation
antl allvariants i n
punctuation in his works are of particular interest. I t would seen1 to us
irresponsible to ignore them.
T h u s the s t u d y of a series of editorial decisions i n a passage involv
ingonlypunctuationalvariantscan,antl
surely must,havebothan
interesting ancl important effect upon the interpretation of the pasiage.
It seems to us, therefore, that particularly in the works o f a nincteenthor twentieth-ccntury poet, punctuation variants nlwt
be considered a
part of meaning ancl so recortlctl. Browning was especially sensitive to
therhetoricalfunction
of punctuation; and, many of thechanges in
punctuation which he lnatle i n his various editions reflect his concern to
heighten or clarify meaning. A dramatic example is the way in which he
replacedtheincleterminate
clash-so
frequently used i n theearlier
zyxwvut
zyxwvu
zyxwvu
xii
zyxwv
zyxwvutsr
zyxw
zyxwvut
zyxwvu
zyxwvutsrqp
drafts and early editions of his wol-k-by other more precise marks of
punctuation. Whatever else may be said a 1 x ) u t the signification of the
dash, i t is clear tllat its use suggests between the elements thus marked
off antl tlle rest of the sentence a looser relationship than that achieved
by other marks of punctuation. I t also signals 21 more radical break in
the rhythmic pattern of tlle line than that suggestctl by commas, fo~example. I n the 1833 edition of f'(~ulino,there are zgz dashes. In the
heavily revised edition of 1868 thesc have lxen reduced to 77. In the
manuscript of T h e Ring o , l t i lhr Book thereare consitlel-al,ly more
tlashcs than there arc in the first antl subsequcnt editions. T h e number
in Rook I are reduced from 146 to I 27 in the final ctlition; those in Book
V111. from 447 to 2 1 8 . In almost every case the clash is replaced by some
other mark o f punctuation. T h e followingcxamples,alltakenfrom
P t l u / i ~ ~ tl , , ~ characteristic
t
o f Browning's practicc elsewhere, illustrate
how thisrevisionin
punctuation suhst;tntiallyaltersthe
relation hetween the involvctl elements antl certainlyresults in a very different
rhythmic pattern antl, most likely, in ;I different meaning.
T h e only serious question that remains, as we sec i t , is whether or
W;IS indeed responsiblc for the changes i n punctuation
that occur in the various stagesof his work. Once that fact is established,
W C have no choice b u t to include them as substantive reatling5.
)lot Browning
111
1'HE BASIC XIATERIALS
zyxwvut
Aside from a handful of uncollected poems, all short, everything
but Asolundo went through two or more editions during Browning's
lifetime.
Except
for Prrulinp, SIr'tffovd.
antl Sovticllo. everything
published before 1849 was republished in newly edited form in the 1849
collection. S / m J b t ' t f antl Sovdcllo were newly edited for the collection of
. ..
Xlll
zyxwvutsrq
zyxwvutsrq
zyxwv
zyxwvuts
zyx
zyxwvu
zyx
zyxwvutsr
zyxwvu
1863, as were all other works i n that edition. T h e 1868 collection added
works,
a newlyrevised Pcruline and Drcrmtrfis Personctc, totheother
which were themselves revised. T h e 1888-8ya collection in sixteen volumes included everything so far pul>lishetl in volumes (certain poems
published only in periodicals were not included; d ~ o l a n r l owas added as
Volulnc XVll after Browning’s death).T h e printing of this edition was
1889, ; t n d theexhauslion
of some of the early
completedinJuly,
volumes let1 Browning to correct the first ten volumes before he left for
Italy i n late Augusl.T h e second edition of this sixteen volume collection
is dated 1889 on the title pages; thefirst eight volumes of the first edition
are dated 1888, the rest, 1889. WC have designated Volumes IX to S V I
of the first edition 1889a.
We have designated the existing manuscripts and editions either as
primary or secondary materials. T h e primary materials include:
1. T h e manuscript of each volume (when such exists;see t’A1 I1e at
the endof prcfacc);
2. T h e proof sheets (when such exist);
3. T h e original edition of each volume (antl subscquent separate
editions when such exisl);
4. T h e collected editions over which Browning excrcisetl editorial
control:
1 8 q v I ’ o r , t n s 6 y K06c?.1 Bvo7ut7ing. Two Volumes. London: Chapman antl Hall.
1863-The Poc,ticctl 1l’o~k.s. Three Volumes. London:Chapman
and Hall.
1868-Thr
foc,(icccl Il’ovks. Six Volumes. London:Smith,Elder
antl Company.
1888-TThr Poelical 1l’o~k.s.Volumes 1-8. London:Smith,Elder
and Company.
1889a-TThr Poelicctl If’orks. Volumes 9 1 6 . London: Smith, Elder
and Company.
1889-The Porlicttl Il’orks. Volumes 1-16. London: Smith. Elder
antl Company.
(Vols. 1-10, a revision of1888-188ya; Vols. I 1-16, a reprint of
1889a.)
All other relevant materials now known to exist or which may be
discovered while this edition is being prepared will be called secondary.
Examples of such materials are: the copy of thc first edition of P(ctt/i,tt,
whichcontainsannotations
by BrowningandJohnStuartMill;the
copies of the first edition of Porncc.1stt.s which contain corrections in
Browning’s hand; Elizabed1 Barrett’s suggestions for the revision of A
Soul’s Tragrtly and certain poemsin Drc~rnntic Romnnces n,?r/ Lyrics
(1845); and the edition of Slt.c!fforcl b y Miss EmilyHickeyforwhich
Browning macle suggestions.
xiv
Iv
zyxwvutsr
zyxw
zyxwvutsr
zyxwvuts
zyxwvuts
zyxwvu
zyxwvutsrq
zyxwvut
AUTHORIAL CONTROL
Given these diverse materials, we must first determine the natureof
the decisions for the variants in order to establish the extent to which
each may be given authorial authority. Any variant clearly an error we
have
corrected.
This inclutles
all
obvious
misprints,
particularly
droppedendlinepunctuation,antl
also inadvertenterrors i n paragraphing which are revealedwhenthe
printed versions of a text are
compared with the manuscript. When, for example, a paragraph, indicated in the manuscript, comes between two lines the first of which falls
i n the first edition at the Ixxtom of the page h t in subsequent editions
within the page of text, the paragraph may very well not be indicated in
the latter. In such cases, we have restored what was unquestionably the
author‘s intention, even though he llinlself failed to detect the error in
proof.
Matters of spelling and typography present no real problems. Dismodern practices are few
crepancies between Browning’s spelling antl
indeed antl require no emendation. There aresome discrepancies in the
useoftwo
possible spellings for the same word.
For example, in the
manuscript of The Riug n r l c l / h e Book Browning uses both Itonoz~~.
and
hono1~.I n the first and subsequent editions. however, the formItonoztr is
used consistently. Whether Browning himself decitletl i n proof to regularize his spelling or whether consistency
was imposed upon him by
thepublisher we cannot say. In either case, however, thematter is
immaterial since i t in no way alters the meaning of Browning’s statement. Similarly, the plural offolk in the manuscript ant1 i n the first antl
second edition of T h e Rirzg ( 1 7 1 d //re Book isjiolks. In the 1888edition i t
h a s been cl1;inged to folk. T h a t Browning himself was responsible for
this change is suggested by the fact that one such example not corrected
(117 U Balcony, 1. 184) in the 1888 edition is chmgecl in Browning’s hand
for the 1889 reprinting. With such words we have accepted the form
used inthe
1888-1889 editionantlrecorded
all variantstherefrom
because, in such instances. the phonic character of the line is changed.
of Browning’s
Materials of this sort are valuable not only to readers
poetry but also to students of language. particularly of orthography.
Typography is less a problem than i t might be with poets whose
meaning depends partly on the appearance of their poetry on the page.
T h e issue, however, is not entirely irrelevant. T h e manner of printing
spsces, for
thelonglines
of Lo Saisictz, whetheronone-ortwo-line
example, might control to some degree the reatler’s response to them.
Nowhere. however. does Browning indicate that he wished to use typography to control meaning, antl the inference
is that whatever changes
occur from edition to edition are the responsibility
of the printer. We
have made no effort to record them.
zyxwv
zyxwvutsr
zyxwvutsr
zyxwvuts
zyxw
zyxw
Changes in typography along with a number
of others may reasonably be consitlered matters of house styling. A number of variants occur
i n the plays i n thepresentation of characters.placelocation,stage
~ l
designations all of which we record except: ( I )
directions. a ~ character
accitlentals lor stage dircctions which involve only change in manner of
statementsuch as E P I / ~H, -u m p d e n instead of Hn?nfxl(~nc n / e ~ s(such
accitlentals arc standardized to the 1889 text when they are used as drop
words); ( 2 ) accitlentals for stage directions sucha s i l s i r l r instead of oside,
[Aside.] instead of [ A s i d e ] , [STRAFFORD.] instead of [STRAFFORD] ;
(3) accitlentals for character designations such as Lndy Cavlislr instead
of Cor or Clcl~lislr.
During most of Browning's career, a space was left in the contraction o f two words: thus "it's" was printed " i t 'S." These we have closed up
i n accordance with modern practices. Another matter almost certainly
the result of house styling is the manner of indicating quotations. In the
first edition of C/wisrmc~sEuc n n r l E o . s / r l -Dny, for example. and in the
collected edition of 1863, each line of a quotation is preceded by a
quotation mark. In contrast, i n So~-rlelloi n both the first edition and in
the collected etlitioll of 1863, quotation marks are placed only at the
T h e first edition of Sovclello,
beginning antl end of aquotation.
published by Edward Moxon, and that
of Ch,is/nzcts Ez?r o , ~ dEmtel.
Day, publishecl by Chapman a n d Hall, were both printed by Bratlbury
ancl Evans. It would seem inthis case at least thatthecompositors
printedthematerial
theywere given without attenlpting to nlalie i t
confornl to house styling. Onc might assume that the different publisllers imposed their own practices upon the manuscript before sulxnitting
i t to the printer. T h e 1863collected edition, where these differences are
maintained, serves only to confuse the issue, however. This edition also
was published by ChapmanantlHall,butprinted
by John Eclward
Taylor. Clearly here neither publisher nor printer bothered to follow a
consistent practice. Browning too, presumably having read the proof,
was content to let the inconsistencies stand. I t was not until 1868 when
Smith, Elder ancl Company both printed antl published the
new collected edition that a fairly consistent policy of indicating quotationswas
adopted for Browning's work. In general after the appearance
of this
edition,quotationsareindicated
by aquotationmarkbothatthe
beginning a n d end of thc quotation and at the beginning of each new
line within the quotation. Smith, Elder and Company printed the four
titles following the 1868 collected edition. Afterthose, the remaining
were printed by Spottiswoode and Company. It would seem, therefore,
that Browning's new and last pul~lisherimposed house styling upon the
poet in the manner of indicating quotations. T h e matter is not entirely
clear, however, since some inconsistencies
remain even i n the last collected edition. T h e weight of the evidence, nevertheless, is that Brow-
xvi
zyxwvu
i
zyxwvuts
zyxwvut
zyxwv
ning deferred to his publisher on this matter. We regard the quotation
marks,therefore, as genuineaccidentalsand
i n our textfollow the
modern practice-also that of Browning in many case-f
indicating a
quotation with marks only at the beginning
ancl the end.
T h e manuscript of The Ri?rg N H /~h e Book throws considerable
light upon not only this subject but related
ones, all of which can best be
discussed together. T h e K i n g crnd / / / e B ~ ~ owas
l i printed and published
by Smith. Elder antl Company.T h e manuscript. in two bound volumes,
is now in the British Museum. T h e first volume contains the material
published i n 1868; the second, that published i n 1869. T h e first volume
contains relatively few corrections, although those which do appear are
undoubtedly in Browning’s hand. Between the manuscript and the first
edition, however. there are extensive differences, both in wording and
punctuation. Clearly Browning or someone made extensive corrections,
perhaps in the proof$. Unfortunately those proofs, as far as can now he
determined, no longerexist. T h e secondvolume,incontrast,
isvery
heavily corrected i n Browning‘s hand, antl the differences between the
corrected manuscript antl the first edition are considerably fewer. T h e
second volulne presumably received the revision that was made i n the
first volumeonlyafterthe
proofs had been printed. T h e corrected
manuscript of the secondvolume is consistentwiththeprinted
first
edition of volume one.T h e changes in both the
first edition of books one
through six antl of volume two of the manuscript suggest that Browning
himself made them in order to be more precise antl expressive in his
choice of words, to reflect more sensitively the nature of the juncture
between rhetorical units, or better to utilize phonic antl rhythmic patterns as part of his meaning. It appears that Browning wrote hurriedly,
givingprimaryattention
to wordingand less to punctuation,being
satisfied, as I have already suggested, to use a dash to indicate almost
any break in thought or rhythm. Later, either
inproof (the first six
books) or on the manuscript itself (the last six books) he changcd the
dashes to other. more expressive marks of punctuation. T h e punctuation of the printed firbt six books antl that of the manuscript of the last
six books is consistent; both are consistent with Browning’s practices
elsewhere. T h e punctuational changes in Thr Rirzg crncl / h e Book we
must conclude are those of Browning’s own choice and not of housestyling.
as we
In the matterof indicating quotations, however, the evidence.
have already suggested, is that Browning accepted house styling. In the
manuscript for the first six books, quotationsbegin and endwith a
quotationmark. I n the first edition,however,quotationmarksalso
precede each line of a quotation. In the last six books the latter practice
is followed both in the manuscript and in the
first edition. T h e inference
is that Browning prepared his manuscript following one procedure and
zyxwvuts
xvii
zyxwvuts
zyxwv
zyxwvut
zyxw
zyxwvuts
zyxw
thenchanged i t , perhaps inresponsetohis
new publisher’spolicies
for the
established i n the 1868 edition of his collected poetry. in proof
first six books and in the manuscript for the last six books.
Having eliminated ol,vious errors antl having decided not to record
variants clearly arising from housestyling, we arrive finally at those
variants, both word and punctuation, which are substantive, and which
if they are Browning’s, should be recognized as authoritative antl recorded. Let us begin where the evidence is clear and irrefutable. Browning hatl complete control ovcr the text for the 1888-1889 edition of his
works.Professor
Michael Hancher,editor of thecorrespondence between BrowningandhispublisherGeorgeSmith,haspublishedan
enlightening article in which he summarizes the relevant information
contained intheseletters.
He concludes: “The evidence is clear that
Browning undertook the 1888-1889 edition of his PovticrJl Il’o~ksintent
on controlling even the smallest minutiae of the text. Though he at one
time considered supplying biographical
and explanatory notes to the
poems, he finally decided against such a scheme, concluding in his letter
to Smith of 1 2 November 1887, ’I am correcting them carefully, and t h a l
must suffice.’ ’’ On January 1 3 , 1888, he wrote, regarding the six-volume
edition of his collected works published in 1868 which
was to serve as the
printer’s copy for the final edition: “I have thoroughly corrected the six
volumes of the Works, antl can let you have them at once.” Hancher
continues: “Browning evidently kept a sharp
eye on the production of all
sixteen of the volumes, including those later volumes.. . . Browning
returned proof for Volume 3 on 6 May 1888, commenting, ’I have hatl, as
usual, to congratulate myself on the scrupulousaccuracy of the Printers’;
on 3 I December he returned proofs of Volume 11, ‘corrected carefully’;
and he returned ‘the corrected Proofs of Vol. SV‘ on I May 1889.“ (All
quotationsarefrom
Michael Hancher’s“BrowningandthePoetical
Works of 1888-1889.” Bl-owlling Newslettel-, (Spring 1971):25-27.
These letters certainly establish Browning‘s intent to control the
text of the final edition of his work. There is concrete evidence that
what he intended he achieved. By spring of 1889. i t was evident that a
new printing would be required. Browning informed James
Dykes Campbell that he was making Corrections which the publisher would incorporate in the new printing. Browning offered to transcribe the corrections
,
into Campbell‘s own set. T h e copies of the volumes corrected in Browning’s hand are now in the British Museum ancl contain on the fly leaf
of volume one a note by Campbell which explains precisely what happened. Browning proposed to correct the entire edition before reprinting. Before he left for Italy on August 29, 1889. hc had completed his
corrections for the first ten volumes. His death in Venice a few months
later prevented h i m from finishing the task as far as we presently know.
When the new printing appeared in 1889 the first ten volumes incorpo-
xviii
zyxwvut
rated Browning's emendations. Campbell says that the corrections numbered "upwards of 250" (thereare 247). Itshould be recognized. of
course, that this marked copy was not the one used by the printer and
that even Browning in transferring the changes from one text to, another might have erred.
Nevertheless.thesechanges are indisput;bly
Browning's and are thosewhich.according to his own statement. he
proposed to make in the new edition. They are, therefore, unquestionably authoritative. To what extent, we then ask, were these authorial
requests recognized, and were there changes in the 1889 text which suggest that anyone other than Browning altered the text?
T h e evidence is overwhelming that Browning's proposed changes
were made as hedirected.Twohundredthirty-two
of them appear
precisely as they are marked in the Campbell text. Of the twelve which
areomittedallexcept
two areend of linepunctuationmarksand
appear, since Browning's changes are obviously corrections in the 1888
edition required by the meaning of the line, to be simple printers' errors.
T h e two exceptions are failures to change
Utopia to Eutopin and they to
then. T h e latter is certainly an error since the meaning
of thetext
requires the change.
There arethree examplesin which the printers made changes other
than those designatedby Browning:
zyxwvu
zyxwv
zyxwvuts
zyxwv
zyxwv
zyxwvutsrqpon
zyxwvuts
K i n g V i c t o r a n d K i n g C h a r l e s ,Second Year, Part I , 1. 3 1 :
1888: give pretext
B's Correction: give a pretext
1889: give the pretext
P a u l i n e , 1. 332:
1888: caves
B's Correction: caves,
1889: caves:
T h e R i n g anti the Book, IX, 1. 1492:
1888: afterward
B's Correction: afterward.
1889: afterward!
There is no certain way to account for these discrepancies. Browning
himself might have made an errorin transcribing the changes in Campbell's copy or the printers mightunconsciously have made substitutions.
There is nothing, however,tosuggest
thatthechanges
were made
deliberately by someone who wished to alter the meaning
of the text.
They remain isolated examples more logically accounted for as errors
than as anything else. It seems conclusive, both from Browning's stated
intention and hispractice,that
for thisfinal editionBrowningand
Browning alonewas responsible.
T h e strong probability exists that by at least 1863 Browning had
xix
zyx
zyxwvuts
zyxw
zyx
zyxwvut
zyxwvutsr
principle control over the editorial function. Writingto Chapman in the
1850s he shows concern for punctuation (”I attach importance to the
mere stops.. .”). Hancher cites evidenceof Browning’s close supervision
of the 1868 edition of his collected works. Mrs. Orr reports his resentment of those whogarbled histext by misplacinghisstops
(L~fe,
355-358). She continues that his punctuation “was always matle with
the fullest sense of its significancc to any but the baldest style. antl of
itsspecial importance to his own
(Lifr. :$6o).” We note also that she
says he sent proof sheets to his French friend Joseph hlilsantl
for correction (L$.. 265). There is no evidence. however. that in seeking such
help. Browning relinquished his ow11final editorial function.
T h a t he was solely responsible from the beginningfor all changcsof
words and lines seems obvious. I n 1847 Elizabeth Barrctt made suggestions for numerous changes in A Soul’s Tmgrdy antl some of the poems
which compose Dorncc/ic Romnnces a n t l Ly,-ics (for a full list see Nc.w
Poems by Robe,-/ LI~.oroningnnd Elizcrbelh Burwll BrozunIng, ed. Sir
Frederick G. Kenyon [New York, 1 9151, pp. 140-76). Some of these
Browning accepted antl others he rejected. Obviously he
did not defer
automatically even to her. although he professes grcat confidence i n her
literary judgment. Those which he accepted after deliberation, we regard as his own. Carcful examination of the manuscripts and the first
editions reveal no information to suggest that anyone other than Browning tampered with his wording between submission of the manuscript
and the appearance of the first edition. Such changes as do occur are
consistent with what we know of Browning’s practices antl suggest that
in every case he himself macle the change. In the case of Pawrcelsus and
Thc. RiTlg a n d the Book, if these two sizable manuscripts maybe regarded as representative.there isevery reasonto indicatethatsuch
changes as appear in thefirst edition were those whichBrowning himsclf
made.
ancl
T h e history of the Parnre/su.r text isof thehighestinterest
importance. T h e manuscript of that poem exhibits either an ignorance
of punctuation conventions or arefusal to consider them very seriously.
Forwhateverreason,Browningexhibitsinthismanuscript
;L wide
latitude of innovation even from a variety of conflicting current punttuational conventions.T h e manuscript shows, however, house styling,
or
the exercise of the editorial function by someone other than Browning
for one leaf in Act I and all but thefirst and last pages of Act 111. Several
other pages show editorial changes in punctuation which may be Browning’s. What precisely happened to the stylingof some af the manuscript
before it was finally printed is uncertain. Either a new manuscript was
prepared, or proof was set u p fromthe manuscript as i t stood after
partial editing antl was then thoroughly revised. T h e manuscript shows
signs of heavy use. indications forthe signatures(correctedforone
signature), and what are compositors’
names. T h e secondpossibility,
xx
then, seems the more likely. T h e results are significant. First, although
the printed punctuation of the edited portions of the manuscript does
not correspond with that editing, i t is in the same style as that editing.
Second. the printed punctuation of the unedited portions is in the same
of the
style astheprinted
versions of theeditedportions,andthus
editing in the manuscript. Third, subsequent published works for which
no manuscriptexists are in the same styleas the printed 1835 Ptwncefsus.
T h e nextavailablemanuscript
of major significance, that for
Chvistmas EUPn n d Ens/ev Day, prepared for the printer by Elizabeth a n d
Robert, shows virtually no variation from the first edition of 1850. All
evidence indicates that from 1835 onward Browning was responsible for
variants to be found in the several editions of his work over which he
had nominal supervision exceptthose listed above as exclutletl.
zyxw
zyxwvutsrq
zyxwvutsrq
zyxw
zyxwvu
One cannot reasonably say that the 1889 text or any single one of
the others best represents the “real” Robert Browning. There is no way
of establishing objectively the greater accuracy
or the greater artistic
merit of anyone of thesevarious texts. We prefer the 1889 edition
(amended to conform to the Campbell text and corrected
for obvious
i t has
error) because,in addition to being indisputably authoritative
other recommendable characteristics. Although
we cannot say that i t
represents the f i n a l intentions ofrrn author, conceived as a static entity,i t
does represent the final decisions of Robert Browning who remained to
the end of his life an author capableof continual change. Moreover, by
1889, Browning was the most experiencededitor or his own poetic
discourse. It seems to m , therefore, that the
1889 edition of his work
provides the nlost satisfactory basic text because the possibility is that in
1889 he had a better g a s p of the coherence of intlivid~~al
works and of
the poetic convention. including the conventions of punctuation, than
anyone else.
We propose, therefore, to print the 1889 text (amended to conform
with the Campbell text) for the first ten volumes; the 1888 text for the
second six volumes; the 1889 edition of Aslnnclo, all corrected to eliminate both errol-s and the consequences of house styling. T h e only alterations which we have made in the arrangenlent
of the copy-text is to
rearrange the materials so that they appear in the order of their first
publication. This involves restoring to their original
orcler the poems
included in Drtcnznlic Lyrics. Drtcmnlic Romcznces n n t l Lyrics. and Men
c c n d Ic’onze??.
By presenting this text accompanied by the variant readings from
manuscripts and subsequent editions,
we provide the reader not only an
acceptable text but the materials necessary to reconstruct any portion of
xxi
Browning's work as i t developed over the years. This enables him both
to study the work i n its variant forms and the poetic process by which i t
came into existence.
T h e presentation of variants is not entirely conventional. Indeed,
there is no one way to offer variants. We feel justified,therefore,in
having developed a method consistent with the principles
of good textualpractice andappropriatetotheparticularrequirements
of our
presenttask.We
believe that i t has theadvantage of presentingthe
history of the variants in the order i n which they appeared. from thefirst
form through the final one. antl in a way in which the full text of each
line of each edition is most accurately antl readily reconstructed.
I n presenting the variants from the1889 text we print at the bottom
of the page variants found in the manuscripts, when available, and
in
the first and subsequent e d i t i o n s t h a t is, variants found in the primary
materials. I t seems to us that we can give a clearer, more concise notion
of Browning's editorial function if we separate primary materials from
secondary materials as these are defined in item 111. Moreover, we must
assume that additional manuscripts may become available between now
andthetimethe
last volume of thisedition i s published,makinga
supplemental volume of variants necessary. We have decided, therefore,
all variants derived from
secondary
that i t would belogicaltoplace
materials together in a final volume. This final volume will also include
T h o m m l V o ) ~ l w o ~Eud
l / ~ ,of S/1-c!ffoo,.clby John Forster, to which Browning's contribution was apparently considerable butis so far indeterminable.
zyxw
zyxw
zyxwvu
zyxwv
zyx
zyxwvutsr
zyxwvut
TABLE or: S I G N S
All signsused by Browning himself have been avoided.T h e symbols
essential to an understanding of the variant notes are
set out in the
following tableof signs:
Q . . . §
I
11,111, . . .
Editor's
note
omitted
Words
Line break
Line break plusoneormore
lines wilhout internal variants
All variants are placed at the bottom of the page of text to which
they refer. A variant is generally preceded and followed by a pickup and
a drop word (example a). N o note terminates with a punctuation mark
unless the punctuation mark comes at the end of a line. I f a variant
drops or adds a punctuation mark, the nextword is added (example 6).
xxii
zyxwv
zyxw
zyxwvu
zyxwvutsrqponmlkjih
zyxw
zyxw
zyxwvutsr
zyxw
If the normal pickup word has appeared previously in the same line, the
note begins with the word preceding it. If the normal
drop word appears
subsequently i n the line, the next word is added (example c). If 21 single
capitalized pickup word occurs within the line. i t is accompanied by the
precedingword.Nopickupword,however,
is used forany variant
consisting of aninternalchange,
for example.ahyphen
in acompounded word, an apostrophe, atense change, or a spelling change. Nor
is a dropword used when the variantcomes at the endof a line (example
e). Illustrations from Sodello:
(1 fill1 1840: butthatappeared
1863: butthisappeared
0 1) atend ofline:
1091
1840: it, "taken < > intrigue:" 1863: i t , taken C > intrigue.
2 ) 821 1840: forests like 1863: forests,like
c 1831 18-10: afterclueantl
1863: afterclue,antl
771 I 8 f 0 : Who managed < > that night by
1863: She managed < > that, night by night, 1888: by night
d 1) a single capitalized pickup word:
fill 1840: Now-nor, this 1863: Now-not this
2 ) a single capitalized pickupword within line:
2951 1840: at Padua to repulse the
1863: at Padua who repulsed the
e 1) 2851 1840: shall 1863:should
2 ) at endof line:
861
18-10: sky: 1863: sky.
Each recorded variant will be assumed to be incorporated in the next
edition if there is no indication otherwise.
All characterdesignationswhichappear
i n variantentries will
conform to the 1889 text as i t appears in this edition. I n typing variants
i n theplays, we ignore character designations unless the designation
comes within a numberecl line, in which case we treat i t as any other
word. In such cases, therefore, it is used as pickup or drop word. When i t
isused as a pickup word, however. the general rule regarding pickup
words which begin with a capital letter does not apply.
VI1
ANNOTAlIONS
Browning scholarship is not yet fully mature. T h e notes we have
presented,therefore,arenotintendedtobeexhaustiveorfinal.
The
format of the edition has been planned to allow for revision of the notes
i t can be
without disturbing the text.
If the textprovessatisfactory,
reprinted indefinitely withnew sets of notes.
As a general principle, we have annotated proper names, phrases
that function as proper names, and words or groups of words the full
meaning of which requires factual, historical, or literary background.
xxiii
zyx
zyxwv
zyxwvuts
zyxwvu
Thus. we have attempted to holdinterpretationtoaminimum,although we realize thatthe act of selection itself is to some extent
interpretative.
Specifically, we have annotated the following: ( I ) proper names; ( 2 )
geographical locations; (3) allusions to Biblical and other literature; (4)
words not included in IVcb.\ld5 Collrgicrtc Diclio)lory,Seventh Edition
(sincesome limits mmt be imposed upon our
work a n d becausethis
dictionary is generallyacceptedandreadilyavailable.Weannotate
words used by Browning in a sense other tllan that give11 in this dictionary. For a more accurate understanding
we have relied heavily upon
(5) otheritemsrequiringfactual
SamuelJohnson’sdictionary);and
information which is not of current common knowledge or easily available. All passages i n a language other than English are translated into
English.Occasional quotations fromBrowning’ssourcesareincluded
when such source quotations seem especially pertinent and are of tlifficult access.
For notes. particularlyonhistorical
figures antlevents, we have
tentled to prefer fullnessand even to risk the tangential and unessential.
As ;I result. some o f the information provided may be perhaps unnecessary for the mature scholar.On the other hand,i t is impossible to assume
that all who use this edition-the ordinary reader and the undergraduate and graduate student,for exanlple-will be fully equipped to assimilate unaitlecl all of Browning’s copiousli tcrary, historical,and mythological allusions. Thus we have directed our effortstoward an audience
conceived as a continuum from therelatively uninformed to the trained.
zyxwvuts
zyxwv
zyxw
zyxwvu
I A H L E 0 1 ; AUIIREVIAI’IONS AND SHORT TIILES USED I N ANNOTAI‘IONS
B
DeVane. H t i k .
Browning
William
DeVane.
C.
d Brozoning Hovclbook.
New York: Appleton-Century-C:r~~ft.
19.55.
Griffinantl MinchinW.
H. Griffin and H. C . Minchin. T / ILife
~ of
Robc1.1Bj.ozut7i~1g.
New York: R.l:tcmillan, I 5) t o .
Hood, Ll1.s.
Thurman L. Hood, etl. L(,/lcrs of Ro6r1.l
B~~ownirrg
Colleclcd by T . J . IVisc. New Haven:
Yale University Press, 1933.
On-, H k 6 .
Mrs. Sutherland
Orr.
Handbook l o I / I F Ir’oi-ks
of liobert Browning. New Edition. Kevised antl
in part Part Kewritten by Freclric G . Kenyon.
Boston and New York: Houghton Mifflin Company, I 89 I .
P -c
Charlotte Porter and Helen ’4.Clarke, eds. T h e
Cornplele Il’oyk.5 (Jf Robe7.1 B ~ O 7 0 7 7 I 1 7 ~I .2 vols.
Issued first in 1898 and reissued frequently. I t
appeared in 1910as the De Luxe Edition and i n
I 9 12 as the Pocket Edition. New York: Crowell
and Company.
xxiv
VI11
zyxwvutsrq
zyxwvutsr
zyxwvu
zyxwvuts
zyxwvuts
TABLE OF MANUSCRIPTS
T h e followingmanuscriptsareknown
to exist inthelocations
indicated:
Prrrncels1rs
Forster and Dy
zyxwvuts
zyxwvutsrqponm
zyxwvutsrqp
.. , .?,',
m:.*
'V'
THE COMPLETE WORKS OF ROBERT k W N I N G j C ; VOLUME 111
i
Voriont
qiidings
Annototions
zyxwvu
E D I T O R I A LB O A R D
zyxwvutsrq
D
zyxwvuts
PARK
HONAN
W A R N E RB A R N E S
V O L U M E 111
'
O H I O U N I V E R S I T YP R E S S
A T H E N S ,O H I O
...
111
1971
zyxwvutsr
zyxwvutsrq
zyxwvut
Copyright o 1971by Ohio University Press
Library of Congress Catalog Card Number:68-18389
ISBN 82 14-74-6
All rights reserved
Printed in the United Statesof America
iv
CONTENTS
Page Number
vii
PREFACE
THREV
E OLUME
TABLEOFEDITIONSREFERREDTO
IN
zyxwvu
zyxwvutsrq
zyxwvutsr
zyxw
zyxwvutsrq
xxviii
Page Number
in Original
Edition
P I P P AP A S S E S
Introduction
Part I. M o r n i n g
Part 11. Noon
Part 111. Evening
P a r t IV. Night
KINGVICTORANDKINGCHARLES
First Year, 1730”
I
Part Victor.King
PartVictor.
King
I1
Second Year, 1731Part
Charles.
King
I
Part
Charles.
King
I1
13
3
23
41
58
4
8
IO
72
13
89
I02
8
125
142
159
ESSAY O N C H A T T E R T O N
V
5
13
17
zyxwvutsrq
zyxw
zyxwv
zyxwvutsrq
D R A R I A T I CL Y R I C S
Cavalier Tunes
Marching Along
Give a Rouse
Boots and Saddle
M y Last Duchess
Count Gismond
I n c i d e n t of t h e F r e n c h C a m p
T h e Soliloquy of the Spanish Cloister
In A Gondola
Artemis Prologizes
Waring
Rude1 to the Lady of T r i p o l i
,
Cristina
Johannes Agricola in Meditation
Porphyria’s Lover
Through the ,Metidja to Adb-el-Kadr
T h e P i e d P i p eof
r Hamelin
IV
V
197
199
200
20 1
“03
PO9
21 1
21-4
22-4
228
237
“S9
24 2
24 5
3
3
3
4
4
5
6
7
9
10
12
12
13
13
14
14
zyxwvutsrqpo
T H E R E T U R N O F T H E D R U S E S
Act I
Act I1
Act 111
Act
Act
E D I T O R I A L .N O T E S
P i p p a Passes
King Victor and King Cl~arles
Essay o n C h a t t e r t o n
Dramatic Lyrics
T h e R e t u r n of the Druses
247
249
27 1
285
299
312
325
34 3
352
3 64
S 68
387
C U M U L A T I V
I NE D E
O
TX
IF T L E S
396
CUMULATIVEINDEXOFFIRSTLINES
397
vi
3
6
10
13
16
PREFACE
zyxwvuts
zyxwv
zyxwvutsr
zyxwv
zyxwvuts
zyxwvuts
zyxwv
This edition of the works of Robert Browning is intended to be
complete. 1t is expected to run to thirteen volumes andwill contain:
I . T h e full contents of the first editions of Browning's work, arranged in chronological order. T h e poems included in Dramatic Lyrics,
DramolicRomances and I-yrics, and M e n a n d Il'omen appear in the
order of their first publication rather than the order in which Browning
rearranged them for later publication.
2. All prefaces. dedications,andadvertisementswhichBrowning
wrote for his o w n works or for those of Elizabeth Barrett Browning and
others.
3. T h e twoknownprose
essays whichBrowningpublished:the
review of a book on Tasso,generallyreferredtoas
"The Essay on
Chatterton," and the preface for a collection of letters supposed to have
been written by Percy Bysshe Shelley, generally referred toas "The Essay
on Shelley."
4. T h e front matter and the table of contents of each of the collected editions (1849, 1863, 1868, 1888-89a, and 1889) which Browning
himself saw through the press. T h e table of contents will include both
the pagination of the first edition and of this edition.
5. Poems by Browning published during his lifetime but not collected by him.
6. Unpublished poems by Browning which have come to light since
his death.
7. John Forster's Thomcrs Wentwoylh, Earl of Styafford to which
Browning contri1)utetl significantly, though to whatprecise extent so far
cannot be determined.
8. Variants from secondary materials (see section six of this preface).
11
GENERAL T E X I U A L
PRINCIPLES: COPY-IEXT A N D V A R I A N T S
It is increasingly recognized that methods of editing nineteenthcentury textsneed to be reexamined and probably revised. T h e o l d
vii
fasI1ionetl notion that a nineteenth- or twentieth-century text could be
simply reprintet1 from either thefirst or last edition is no longer tenable.
Recentexamination of the works of Hawthorne,hlelville,Twain.
Cooper, M i l l antl others, for example, reveal problems different from
those arising from texts of earlier centuries, antl also differing problems
among recent writers which distinguish any one from the others.
Before we published Volume One of this edition, and after three
years of intensive study of both the specific problems connected with
Browning’s texts and the adequacy of prevailing theory to solve them,
we arrived at certain basic principles which we felt would produce an
authoritative, useful edition of Browning’s work. We recogniLetl at that
time, however, that after further practical experience with the text and
with new information that would undoubtedly
become available, we
might want to elaborate upon and further document our initial statement of texttlal principles. We now feel that the time has come for a
restatement. We are convinced that the principlesancl methods outlined
in Volume One are basically sound. We will attempt here, however, to
clarify any vagueness which might have existed in
our original effort
andtoprovideadditionalevidencewhich,
we believe. will further
increase the reasonablenessof our choices ancl procedures.
0111
first
- problem was to select an authoritative text, ancl to tleteri t . We have
mine what was and what was not a legitimate variant to
manuscripts for nineteen of Browning’s thirty-four book publications.
Others may become available during the time we are working on this
edition.None,
however,with
the possibleexception
of h o k ! n d o ,
published on the day of Browming’s death, can be said to represent the
author’s final intentions. Each of Browming’s workswent througha
series of editions during his lifetime antl each was revised by Browning
himself.If, indeed,themanuscriptand
each successive edition were
under Browning’s control and if i t can be established that in all probability thechanges macle ineach were his own,then eachrepresents
Browning’s final decision atthetime,andmust
be consideredasa
possible copy-text.Thus the establishment of authorial control becomes
the central concern of the editors. T h a t Browning did exercise control
over the publication of his works we shall demonstrate in due course.
Clearly in thecase of a poet who was revising his work overa period
first
of more than fifty years neither the original manmcript nor the
edition published from i t can meet the accepted
requirements for the
copy-text. Nor would any one text, producedby a process of emendation
and conflation, result in a single text more representative than any one
we now have of what might be called the “real” Browning. To attempt
to-construct such a text would indicate not editorial responsibility, but
flagrant violation of the editorial principle that the author’s own decisions are, to the extent they are discernible, to be respected. Indeed, the
zyxw
...
Vlll
zyx
zyxwvutsrqp
zyxwv
zyxwvuts
zyxwvu
zyxwvu
zyxwvutsr
zyxwvu
position we found ourselves in-that of
producing n text carrying the
authority of ( 1 ~ 7 author-forced us
to reconsider the commonly accepted
understanding of the terms ( e x ( and nzt/hol-.
T o o often both text and author are considered as static entities,
Platonic archetypes. We do not have space here to consider fully
the
philosophical implications of such an assumption and mustof necessity
restrict ourselves to ;I brief statement of a more practical nature. For
thoseinterested, we suggest that they read Morse Peckham’sarticle
“Reflections on the Foundationsof Textual Criticism: Human Behavior
Proof I (1971). Foraworkthat
variesin a
andBetterEditions,”
series of documentsandeditions,
each havingauthorialauthority,
clearly there is no such empirical entity asl h c text. Indeed, graspof this
simple fact raises questions about the authorhimself. Which author-r
the author at whichstage in the process-is meant? Upon whatbasis can
we ascribe greater authenticity to one than to the others?
T h e young
Browning who wrote P(1lrline in 1832, the maturing poet who revised i t
in I 863 and 1868, and the old man who put i t in final form in 1888 and
1889 differ greatly. Each of these editions represented Browning’s final
decisions as he understood himself at the time. Each has its own authori t y , representingtheauthor
as heexisted
atthatparticular
time.
Clearly. to reduce the Browning of those diverse stages to a static entity
renders him noless an artificial construction than to reduce a numberof
versions of a work to a similar artificially constructed single text. Neither of such constructions canbe regarded as an empirical entity.
Our focus shifts, necessarily, from the t e x t and the nulhor considered as static metaphysical entities to theprocess of creating and editing
involved in the compilation of a series of documents; and concern about
the transmission of the text is redirected to the problem of understanding the character of the decisions by which the successive and varying
versions of the work came to be.
It follows, therefore, that we are concerned more about authorial
function andeditorial function thanabout nztlhol- and edilol-. Any
and he
writer’s work consists of two processes: hegeneratesawork,
corrects or edits i t by balancing his current conceptions of the coherence
of what he has written, and his grasp of the conventions applicable to
the kind of discourse he is composing as they then obtain and as he
understands them. T h e two functions are not necessarily isolated and
sequential. T h a t is, he does not generate a statement once and then
forever aftermerely edit it. T h e text itself remainsfluid,subjectto
continuous recreation. T h e manuscript that goes to the printer for the
first edition, no doubt, already represents a series of generations and
revisions; likewise, the marked copy for each subsequent edition may
and probably does represent both editing
and recreation. T h e second
and subsequent editions of Pauline, for example, containing as they do,
zyx
ix
material which not only clarifies and corrects but elaborates upon antl,
in some cases, changes the meaning of the original. represent more than
editing. Following are characteristic examples of genuinely substantive
changes that Browning madei n the first edition:
zyxw
zyxw
zyxw
zyxwvutsrqpo
T h e cumulative impact of numerous such small changcs have
;I profound effect upon the meaning of the revised poem.
This process o f revision Browning continued throughout his life.
One of the most curious alterations occurred i n his revision of Pcrwrcrlsus. In 1835, lines 649650 of Part T w o read:
I n 1849, Browningexpantledthis
passage to inclutleastatement
of
belief i n the Christian doctrine of Incarnation which ratlic;dly altered
the meaning of the original:
zyxwvuts
zyxwvu
zyx
I n 1863,Browning restored the original reading, changing only capitalization and punctuation.
T h e inspirationto place Pompilia's rescue on St.George's Day
came after the first draft of Th(7 Ri?lg n n t l ll7e Book was written and is
recorded as a revision on the manuscript that went to the printer. Other
X
zyxwvut
zyxw
significant changes in the text of this work suggest that the process of
creation continued long after the first edition was pu1,lishetl. For the
second edition of 1 8 7 2 he atldetl seventeen new lines antl made huntlretls
of changes i n both wording antl punctuation, many of which went far
beyondthe scope of nlel-e editing. For the final editions i n 1888 ant1
again in 1889he made still other changes.
It appears to us, therefore, that in exercising his authorial-etlitorial
functions the author's basis for his activity is continually changing. and
may continuetochangethroughout
his life. His grasp of boththe
coherence of his work antl of the convention^ may i~nprove ortletel-iorate; he may come t o feel that the conventions are either more or
less
binding 011 him. Author. then, as we use the term, refers not to ;I stable
entity but to an unstable antl continuously innovating continuum.
We recognize, of course,thatindivitlualsotherthanthe
author
exercise, directly or indirectly, an editorial function. Sometimes, more
common in the past thnn now, their intervention was direct and tlecisive. I n thehistory of printing,thecompositor, the printer.andthe
copyreaderhave been responsible for vari;mts, and insofar as such
variants reflect a grasp of the coherence ofrhework
and of current
conventions, they cannot be classified as errors. Nevertheless. they do not
have authorial authority and inpractice m u s t betlistinguislletlfrom
those known to derive fromthe author himself. An error, i n contrast, is a
variantwhich self-evidently tla~nagesthecoherence of thetext and
departs from the conventions, a s the textual critic himself understands
both factors as they were at work in the historical situation from which
the work emerged. T h e history of printing has moved in the direction of
trying to limit printers' errors, to train composito~-s to set only what is
before them, and to restrict the copyreader to the detection of errors by
requiring him to refer questionable variants to the editor or author.
Botherrorsandarbitrarychanges,originatingotherthanwiththe
author, cannotbe regarded as legitimate parts of the text.
There is also the matter of house styling whichmay induce clmnges
for which the author is not responsible, or only nominally so. The extent
to which house stylingis reflected in Browning's poetry willbe discussed
later. Still another kind of editorial assistance is that of the professional
copyreader or the fkiend who reads the manuscript and suggests changes
in i t . T o what extent do changesso made have authority? T h e question
is a delicate one, almost incapable of i ~ x f u t a b l eanswer. If the author
has no opportunity I O reject or if he accepts the changes perfunctorily
their 5t;ttus is dubious. If, however. the evitlence indicates clearly that he
was free to accept or reject them and cloes one or the other after careful
deliberation, the decision nlust be regal-(led as his 0 ~ 7 1 .
At this point we may summarize. All changes i n the text which are
zyxwvu
zyx
zyxwvutsr
zyx
xi
zyxwvuts
zyxw
zyxwvuts
zyxwvutsrqp
zyxwvu
not obvious crrors a n c l for which the author hiniself is responsible are to
be consideredauthoritative and accepted as legitimate pal.ts ofan
authoritative tcxt. This eliminates arbitrary changes
by iinyone other
than the author. hut includes those which nlight have originatctl with
someone other than the author but deliberately accepted b y him. This
principle provides the basis both for the selection of the copy-test and
for the recordingof variants.
We question the tllcory that automatically regards a l l spelling ; ~ n d
punctuation as accidentals. t h a t is, as mattersaffectingtheformal
prescntation of ;I text but not its meaning. T o he genuinely accidental a
variant must be one that i n uo wtry alters the meaning of the test. On
the other hand, anything-word, syntax,
punctuation, typography. for
example-that might affect thc meaning must be considered sulxtantive. Likclvise anything which affects the phonic dmracter of the line
must be reg:ded a s sul,stantivc.
Spelling can delay the recognition of;^ semantic function, hut if the
current stantlartls of spelling can be unequivocably substituted. then i t
is trulyaccidental, and s o with word divisions antl the likc. Spclling
may. however, alter thc meaning of ;I poem b y distorting the intcntletl
rhythm or sound pattcrn of a line, antl in such a case, motlet-nization
would be 21 violation of thc author's intention. N o simple application of
a theorywhichregards
spellingautomatically as anaccidental is acceptable to a sensitive editor of poetic texts.
Punctuation is still A different matter, however. Whatcver its meaning may be-and this is a matter very little unclerstootl-e~eryone feels
that it is nleaningful. Punctuation, under which we include paragraphing, does not mcrcly affcct the meaning b u t is part of the meaning. One
reason is that punctuation is at least i n part an attempt to record the
character of junctures in the spoken language. Since Browning's mature
poetic style is tar cloher to the spoken language than is norlnal expository prose antlmuchotherpoetry,punctuation
antl allvariants i n
punctuation in his works are of particular interest. I t would seen1 to us
irresponsible to ignore them.
T h u s the s t u d y of a series of editorial decisions i n a passage involv
ingonlypunctuationalvariantscan,antl
surely must,havebothan
interesting ancl important effect upon the interpretation of the pasiage.
It seems to us, therefore, that particularly in the works o f a nincteenthor twentieth-ccntury poet, punctuation variants nlwt
be considered a
part of meaning ancl so recortlctl. Browning was especially sensitive to
therhetoricalfunction
of punctuation; and, many of thechanges in
punctuation which he lnatle i n his various editions reflect his concern to
heighten or clarify meaning. A dramatic example is the way in which he
replacedtheincleterminate
clash-so
frequently used i n theearlier
zyxwvut
zyxwvu
zyxwvu
xii
zyxwv
zyxwvutsr
zyxw
zyxwvut
zyxwvu
zyxwvutsrqp
drafts and early editions of his wol-k-by other more precise marks of
punctuation. Whatever else may be said a 1 x ) u t the signification of the
dash, i t is clear tllat its use suggests between the elements thus marked
off antl tlle rest of the sentence a looser relationship than that achieved
by other marks of punctuation. I t also signals 21 more radical break in
the rhythmic pattern of tlle line than that suggestctl by commas, fo~example. I n the 1833 edition of f'(~ulino,there are zgz dashes. In the
heavily revised edition of 1868 thesc have lxen reduced to 77. In the
manuscript of T h e Ring o , l t i lhr Book thereare consitlel-al,ly more
tlashcs than there arc in the first antl subsequcnt editions. T h e number
in Rook I are reduced from 146 to I 27 in the final ctlition; those in Book
V111. from 447 to 2 1 8 . In almost every case the clash is replaced by some
other mark o f punctuation. T h e followingcxamples,alltakenfrom
P t l u / i ~ ~ tl , , ~ characteristic
t
o f Browning's practicc elsewhere, illustrate
how thisrevisionin
punctuation suhst;tntiallyaltersthe
relation hetween the involvctl elements antl certainlyresults in a very different
rhythmic pattern antl, most likely, in ;I different meaning.
T h e only serious question that remains, as we sec i t , is whether or
W;IS indeed responsiblc for the changes i n punctuation
that occur in the various stagesof his work. Once that fact is established,
W C have no choice b u t to include them as substantive reatling5.
)lot Browning
111
1'HE BASIC XIATERIALS
zyxwvut
Aside from a handful of uncollected poems, all short, everything
but Asolundo went through two or more editions during Browning's
lifetime.
Except
for Prrulinp, SIr'tffovd.
antl Sovticllo. everything
published before 1849 was republished in newly edited form in the 1849
collection. S / m J b t ' t f antl Sovdcllo were newly edited for the collection of
. ..
Xlll
zyxwvutsrq
zyxwvutsrq
zyxwv
zyxwvuts
zyx
zyxwvu
zyx
zyxwvutsr
zyxwvu
1863, as were all other works i n that edition. T h e 1868 collection added
works,
a newlyrevised Pcruline and Drcrmtrfis Personctc, totheother
which were themselves revised. T h e 1888-8ya collection in sixteen volumes included everything so far pul>lishetl in volumes (certain poems
published only in periodicals were not included; d ~ o l a n r l owas added as
Volulnc XVll after Browning’s death).T h e printing of this edition was
1889, ; t n d theexhauslion
of some of the early
completedinJuly,
volumes let1 Browning to correct the first ten volumes before he left for
Italy i n late Augusl.T h e second edition of this sixteen volume collection
is dated 1889 on the title pages; thefirst eight volumes of the first edition
are dated 1888, the rest, 1889. WC have designated Volumes IX to S V I
of the first edition 1889a.
We have designated the existing manuscripts and editions either as
primary or secondary materials. T h e primary materials include:
1. T h e manuscript of each volume (when such exists;see t’A1 I1e at
the endof prcfacc);
2. T h e proof sheets (when such exist);
3. T h e original edition of each volume (antl subscquent separate
editions when such exisl);
4. T h e collected editions over which Browning excrcisetl editorial
control:
1 8 q v I ’ o r , t n s 6 y K06c?.1 Bvo7ut7ing. Two Volumes. London: Chapman antl Hall.
1863-The Poc,ticctl 1l’o~k.s. Three Volumes. London:Chapman
and Hall.
1868-Thr
foc,(icccl Il’ovks. Six Volumes. London:Smith,Elder
antl Company.
1888-TThr Poelical 1l’o~k.s.Volumes 1-8. London:Smith,Elder
and Company.
1889a-TThr Poelicctl If’orks. Volumes 9 1 6 . London: Smith, Elder
and Company.
1889-The Porlicttl Il’orks. Volumes 1-16. London: Smith. Elder
antl Company.
(Vols. 1-10, a revision of1888-188ya; Vols. I 1-16, a reprint of
1889a.)
All other relevant materials now known to exist or which may be
discovered while this edition is being prepared will be called secondary.
Examples of such materials are: the copy of thc first edition of P(ctt/i,tt,
whichcontainsannotations
by BrowningandJohnStuartMill;the
copies of the first edition of Porncc.1stt.s which contain corrections in
Browning’s hand; Elizabed1 Barrett’s suggestions for the revision of A
Soul’s Tragrtly and certain poemsin Drc~rnntic Romnnces n,?r/ Lyrics
(1845); and the edition of Slt.c!fforcl b y Miss EmilyHickeyforwhich
Browning macle suggestions.
xiv
Iv
zyxwvutsr
zyxw
zyxwvutsr
zyxwvuts
zyxwvuts
zyxwvu
zyxwvutsrq
zyxwvut
AUTHORIAL CONTROL
Given these diverse materials, we must first determine the natureof
the decisions for the variants in order to establish the extent to which
each may be given authorial authority. Any variant clearly an error we
have
corrected.
This inclutles
all
obvious
misprints,
particularly
droppedendlinepunctuation,antl
also inadvertenterrors i n paragraphing which are revealedwhenthe
printed versions of a text are
compared with the manuscript. When, for example, a paragraph, indicated in the manuscript, comes between two lines the first of which falls
i n the first edition at the Ixxtom of the page h t in subsequent editions
within the page of text, the paragraph may very well not be indicated in
the latter. In such cases, we have restored what was unquestionably the
author‘s intention, even though he llinlself failed to detect the error in
proof.
Matters of spelling and typography present no real problems. Dismodern practices are few
crepancies between Browning’s spelling antl
indeed antl require no emendation. There aresome discrepancies in the
useoftwo
possible spellings for the same word.
For example, in the
manuscript of The Riug n r l c l / h e Book Browning uses both Itonoz~~.
and
hono1~.I n the first and subsequent editions. however, the formItonoztr is
used consistently. Whether Browning himself decitletl i n proof to regularize his spelling or whether consistency
was imposed upon him by
thepublisher we cannot say. In either case, however, thematter is
immaterial since i t in no way alters the meaning of Browning’s statement. Similarly, the plural offolk in the manuscript ant1 i n the first antl
second edition of T h e Rirzg ( 1 7 1 d //re Book isjiolks. In the 1888edition i t
h a s been cl1;inged to folk. T h a t Browning himself was responsible for
this change is suggested by the fact that one such example not corrected
(117 U Balcony, 1. 184) in the 1888 edition is chmgecl in Browning’s hand
for the 1889 reprinting. With such words we have accepted the form
used inthe
1888-1889 editionantlrecorded
all variantstherefrom
because, in such instances. the phonic character of the line is changed.
of Browning’s
Materials of this sort are valuable not only to readers
poetry but also to students of language. particularly of orthography.
Typography is less a problem than i t might be with poets whose
meaning depends partly on the appearance of their poetry on the page.
T h e issue, however, is not entirely irrelevant. T h e manner of printing
spsces, for
thelonglines
of Lo Saisictz, whetheronone-ortwo-line
example, might control to some degree the reatler’s response to them.
Nowhere. however. does Browning indicate that he wished to use typography to control meaning, antl the inference
is that whatever changes
occur from edition to edition are the responsibility
of the printer. We
have made no effort to record them.
zyxwv
zyxwvutsr
zyxwvutsr
zyxwvuts
zyxw
zyxw
Changes in typography along with a number
of others may reasonably be consitlered matters of house styling. A number of variants occur
i n the plays i n thepresentation of characters.placelocation,stage
~ l
designations all of which we record except: ( I )
directions. a ~ character
accitlentals lor stage dircctions which involve only change in manner of
statementsuch as E P I / ~H, -u m p d e n instead of Hn?nfxl(~nc n / e ~ s(such
accitlentals arc standardized to the 1889 text when they are used as drop
words); ( 2 ) accitlentals for stage directions sucha s i l s i r l r instead of oside,
[Aside.] instead of [ A s i d e ] , [STRAFFORD.] instead of [STRAFFORD] ;
(3) accitlentals for character designations such as Lndy Cavlislr instead
of Cor or Clcl~lislr.
During most of Browning's career, a space was left in the contraction o f two words: thus "it's" was printed " i t 'S." These we have closed up
i n accordance with modern practices. Another matter almost certainly
the result of house styling is the manner of indicating quotations. In the
first edition of C/wisrmc~sEuc n n r l E o . s / r l -Dny, for example. and in the
collected edition of 1863, each line of a quotation is preceded by a
quotation mark. In contrast, i n So~-rlelloi n both the first edition and in
the collected etlitioll of 1863, quotation marks are placed only at the
T h e first edition of Sovclello,
beginning antl end of aquotation.
published by Edward Moxon, and that
of Ch,is/nzcts Ez?r o , ~ dEmtel.
Day, publishecl by Chapman a n d Hall, were both printed by Bratlbury
ancl Evans. It would seem inthis case at least thatthecompositors
printedthematerial
theywere given without attenlpting to nlalie i t
confornl to house styling. Onc might assume that the different publisllers imposed their own practices upon the manuscript before sulxnitting
i t to the printer. T h e 1863collected edition, where these differences are
maintained, serves only to confuse the issue, however. This edition also
was published by ChapmanantlHall,butprinted
by John Eclward
Taylor. Clearly here neither publisher nor printer bothered to follow a
consistent practice. Browning too, presumably having read the proof,
was content to let the inconsistencies stand. I t was not until 1868 when
Smith, Elder ancl Company both printed antl published the
new collected edition that a fairly consistent policy of indicating quotationswas
adopted for Browning's work. In general after the appearance
of this
edition,quotationsareindicated
by aquotationmarkbothatthe
beginning a n d end of thc quotation and at the beginning of each new
line within the quotation. Smith, Elder and Company printed the four
titles following the 1868 collected edition. Afterthose, the remaining
were printed by Spottiswoode and Company. It would seem, therefore,
that Browning's new and last pul~lisherimposed house styling upon the
poet in the manner of indicating quotations. T h e matter is not entirely
clear, however, since some inconsistencies
remain even i n the last collected edition. T h e weight of the evidence, nevertheless, is that Brow-
xvi
zyxwvu
i
zyxwvuts
zyxwvut
zyxwv
ning deferred to his publisher on this matter. We regard the quotation
marks,therefore, as genuineaccidentalsand
i n our textfollow the
modern practice-also that of Browning in many case-f
indicating a
quotation with marks only at the beginning
ancl the end.
T h e manuscript of The Ri?rg N H /~h e Book throws considerable
light upon not only this subject but related
ones, all of which can best be
discussed together. T h e K i n g crnd / / / e B ~ ~ owas
l i printed and published
by Smith. Elder antl Company.T h e manuscript. in two bound volumes,
is now in the British Museum. T h e first volume contains the material
published i n 1868; the second, that published i n 1869. T h e first volume
contains relatively few corrections, although those which do appear are
undoubtedly in Browning’s hand. Between the manuscript and the first
edition, however. there are extensive differences, both in wording and
punctuation. Clearly Browning or someone made extensive corrections,
perhaps in the proof$. Unfortunately those proofs, as far as can now he
determined, no longerexist. T h e secondvolume,incontrast,
isvery
heavily corrected i n Browning‘s hand, antl the differences between the
corrected manuscript antl the first edition are considerably fewer. T h e
second volulne presumably received the revision that was made i n the
first volumeonlyafterthe
proofs had been printed. T h e corrected
manuscript of the secondvolume is consistentwiththeprinted
first
edition of volume one.T h e changes in both the
first edition of books one
through six antl of volume two of the manuscript suggest that Browning
himself made them in order to be more precise antl expressive in his
choice of words, to reflect more sensitively the nature of the juncture
between rhetorical units, or better to utilize phonic antl rhythmic patterns as part of his meaning. It appears that Browning wrote hurriedly,
givingprimaryattention
to wordingand less to punctuation,being
satisfied, as I have already suggested, to use a dash to indicate almost
any break in thought or rhythm. Later, either
inproof (the first six
books) or on the manuscript itself (the last six books) he changcd the
dashes to other. more expressive marks of punctuation. T h e punctuation of the printed firbt six books antl that of the manuscript of the last
six books is consistent; both are consistent with Browning’s practices
elsewhere. T h e punctuational changes in Thr Rirzg crncl / h e Book we
must conclude are those of Browning’s own choice and not of housestyling.
as we
In the matterof indicating quotations, however, the evidence.
have already suggested, is that Browning accepted house styling. In the
manuscript for the first six books, quotationsbegin and endwith a
quotationmark. I n the first edition,however,quotationmarksalso
precede each line of a quotation. In the last six books the latter practice
is followed both in the manuscript and in the
first edition. T h e inference
is that Browning prepared his manuscript following one procedure and
zyxwvuts
xvii
zyxwvuts
zyxwv
zyxwvut
zyxw
zyxwvuts
zyxw
thenchanged i t , perhaps inresponsetohis
new publisher’spolicies
for the
established i n the 1868 edition of his collected poetry. in proof
first six books and in the manuscript for the last six books.
Having eliminated ol,vious errors antl having decided not to record
variants clearly arising from housestyling, we arrive finally at those
variants, both word and punctuation, which are substantive, and which
if they are Browning’s, should be recognized as authoritative antl recorded. Let us begin where the evidence is clear and irrefutable. Browning hatl complete control ovcr the text for the 1888-1889 edition of his
works.Professor
Michael Hancher,editor of thecorrespondence between BrowningandhispublisherGeorgeSmith,haspublishedan
enlightening article in which he summarizes the relevant information
contained intheseletters.
He concludes: “The evidence is clear that
Browning undertook the 1888-1889 edition of his PovticrJl Il’o~ksintent
on controlling even the smallest minutiae of the text. Though he at one
time considered supplying biographical
and explanatory notes to the
poems, he finally decided against such a scheme, concluding in his letter
to Smith of 1 2 November 1887, ’I am correcting them carefully, and t h a l
must suffice.’ ’’ On January 1 3 , 1888, he wrote, regarding the six-volume
edition of his collected works published in 1868 which
was to serve as the
printer’s copy for the final edition: “I have thoroughly corrected the six
volumes of the Works, antl can let you have them at once.” Hancher
continues: “Browning evidently kept a sharp
eye on the production of all
sixteen of the volumes, including those later volumes.. . . Browning
returned proof for Volume 3 on 6 May 1888, commenting, ’I have hatl, as
usual, to congratulate myself on the scrupulousaccuracy of the Printers’;
on 3 I December he returned proofs of Volume 11, ‘corrected carefully’;
and he returned ‘the corrected Proofs of Vol. SV‘ on I May 1889.“ (All
quotationsarefrom
Michael Hancher’s“BrowningandthePoetical
Works of 1888-1889.” Bl-owlling Newslettel-, (Spring 1971):25-27.
These letters certainly establish Browning‘s intent to control the
text of the final edition of his work. There is concrete evidence that
what he intended he achieved. By spring of 1889. i t was evident that a
new printing would be required. Browning informed James
Dykes Campbell that he was making Corrections which the publisher would incorporate in the new printing. Browning offered to transcribe the corrections
,
into Campbell‘s own set. T h e copies of the volumes corrected in Browning’s hand are now in the British Museum ancl contain on the fly leaf
of volume one a note by Campbell which explains precisely what happened. Browning proposed to correct the entire edition before reprinting. Before he left for Italy on August 29, 1889. hc had completed his
corrections for the first ten volumes. His death in Venice a few months
later prevented h i m from finishing the task as far as we presently know.
When the new printing appeared in 1889 the first ten volumes incorpo-
xviii
zyxwvut
rated Browning's emendations. Campbell says that the corrections numbered "upwards of 250" (thereare 247). Itshould be recognized. of
course, that this marked copy was not the one used by the printer and
that even Browning in transferring the changes from one text to, another might have erred.
Nevertheless.thesechanges are indisput;bly
Browning's and are thosewhich.according to his own statement. he
proposed to make in the new edition. They are, therefore, unquestionably authoritative. To what extent, we then ask, were these authorial
requests recognized, and were there changes in the 1889 text which suggest that anyone other than Browning altered the text?
T h e evidence is overwhelming that Browning's proposed changes
were made as hedirected.Twohundredthirty-two
of them appear
precisely as they are marked in the Campbell text. Of the twelve which
areomittedallexcept
two areend of linepunctuationmarksand
appear, since Browning's changes are obviously corrections in the 1888
edition required by the meaning of the line, to be simple printers' errors.
T h e two exceptions are failures to change
Utopia to Eutopin and they to
then. T h e latter is certainly an error since the meaning
of thetext
requires the change.
There arethree examplesin which the printers made changes other
than those designatedby Browning:
zyxwvu
zyxwv
zyxwvuts
zyxwv
zyxwv
zyxwvutsrqpon
zyxwvuts
K i n g V i c t o r a n d K i n g C h a r l e s ,Second Year, Part I , 1. 3 1 :
1888: give pretext
B's Correction: give a pretext
1889: give the pretext
P a u l i n e , 1. 332:
1888: caves
B's Correction: caves,
1889: caves:
T h e R i n g anti the Book, IX, 1. 1492:
1888: afterward
B's Correction: afterward.
1889: afterward!
There is no certain way to account for these discrepancies. Browning
himself might have made an errorin transcribing the changes in Campbell's copy or the printers mightunconsciously have made substitutions.
There is nothing, however,tosuggest
thatthechanges
were made
deliberately by someone who wished to alter the meaning
of the text.
They remain isolated examples more logically accounted for as errors
than as anything else. It seems conclusive, both from Browning's stated
intention and hispractice,that
for thisfinal editionBrowningand
Browning alonewas responsible.
T h e strong probability exists that by at least 1863 Browning had
xix
zyx
zyxwvuts
zyxw
zyx
zyxwvut
zyxwvutsr
principle control over the editorial function. Writingto Chapman in the
1850s he shows concern for punctuation (”I attach importance to the
mere stops.. .”). Hancher cites evidenceof Browning’s close supervision
of the 1868 edition of his collected works. Mrs. Orr reports his resentment of those whogarbled histext by misplacinghisstops
(L~fe,
355-358). She continues that his punctuation “was always matle with
the fullest sense of its significancc to any but the baldest style. antl of
itsspecial importance to his own
(Lifr. :$6o).” We note also that she
says he sent proof sheets to his French friend Joseph hlilsantl
for correction (L$.. 265). There is no evidence. however. that in seeking such
help. Browning relinquished his ow11final editorial function.
T h a t he was solely responsible from the beginningfor all changcsof
words and lines seems obvious. I n 1847 Elizabeth Barrctt made suggestions for numerous changes in A Soul’s Tmgrdy antl some of the poems
which compose Dorncc/ic Romnnces a n t l Ly,-ics (for a full list see Nc.w
Poems by Robe,-/ LI~.oroningnnd Elizcrbelh Burwll BrozunIng, ed. Sir
Frederick G. Kenyon [New York, 1 9151, pp. 140-76). Some of these
Browning accepted antl others he rejected. Obviously he
did not defer
automatically even to her. although he professes grcat confidence i n her
literary judgment. Those which he accepted after deliberation, we regard as his own. Carcful examination of the manuscripts and the first
editions reveal no information to suggest that anyone other than Browning tampered with his wording between submission of the manuscript
and the appearance of the first edition. Such changes as do occur are
consistent with what we know of Browning’s practices antl suggest that
in every case he himself macle the change. In the case of Pawrcelsus and
Thc. RiTlg a n d the Book, if these two sizable manuscripts maybe regarded as representative.there isevery reasonto indicatethatsuch
changes as appear in thefirst edition were those whichBrowning himsclf
made.
ancl
T h e history of the Parnre/su.r text isof thehighestinterest
importance. T h e manuscript of that poem exhibits either an ignorance
of punctuation conventions or arefusal to consider them very seriously.
Forwhateverreason,Browningexhibitsinthismanuscript
;L wide
latitude of innovation even from a variety of conflicting current punttuational conventions.T h e manuscript shows, however, house styling,
or
the exercise of the editorial function by someone other than Browning
for one leaf in Act I and all but thefirst and last pages of Act 111. Several
other pages show editorial changes in punctuation which may be Browning’s. What precisely happened to the stylingof some af the manuscript
before it was finally printed is uncertain. Either a new manuscript was
prepared, or proof was set u p fromthe manuscript as i t stood after
partial editing antl was then thoroughly revised. T h e manuscript shows
signs of heavy use. indications forthe signatures(correctedforone
signature), and what are compositors’
names. T h e secondpossibility,
xx
then, seems the more likely. T h e results are significant. First, although
the printed punctuation of the edited portions of the manuscript does
not correspond with that editing, i t is in the same style as that editing.
Second. the printed punctuation of the unedited portions is in the same
of the
style astheprinted
versions of theeditedportions,andthus
editing in the manuscript. Third, subsequent published works for which
no manuscriptexists are in the same styleas the printed 1835 Ptwncefsus.
T h e nextavailablemanuscript
of major significance, that for
Chvistmas EUPn n d Ens/ev Day, prepared for the printer by Elizabeth a n d
Robert, shows virtually no variation from the first edition of 1850. All
evidence indicates that from 1835 onward Browning was responsible for
variants to be found in the several editions of his work over which he
had nominal supervision exceptthose listed above as exclutletl.
zyxw
zyxwvutsrq
zyxwvutsrq
zyxw
zyxwvu
One cannot reasonably say that the 1889 text or any single one of
the others best represents the “real” Robert Browning. There is no way
of establishing objectively the greater accuracy
or the greater artistic
merit of anyone of thesevarious texts. We prefer the 1889 edition
(amended to conform to the Campbell text and corrected
for obvious
i t has
error) because,in addition to being indisputably authoritative
other recommendable characteristics. Although
we cannot say that i t
represents the f i n a l intentions ofrrn author, conceived as a static entity,i t
does represent the final decisions of Robert Browning who remained to
the end of his life an author capableof continual change. Moreover, by
1889, Browning was the most experiencededitor or his own poetic
discourse. It seems to m , therefore, that the
1889 edition of his work
provides the nlost satisfactory basic text because the possibility is that in
1889 he had a better g a s p of the coherence of intlivid~~al
works and of
the poetic convention. including the conventions of punctuation, than
anyone else.
We propose, therefore, to print the 1889 text (amended to conform
with the Campbell text) for the first ten volumes; the 1888 text for the
second six volumes; the 1889 edition of Aslnnclo, all corrected to eliminate both errol-s and the consequences of house styling. T h e only alterations which we have made in the arrangenlent
of the copy-text is to
rearrange the materials so that they appear in the order of their first
publication. This involves restoring to their original
orcler the poems
included in Drtcnznlic Lyrics. Drtcmnlic Romcznces n n t l Lyrics. and Men
c c n d Ic’onze??.
By presenting this text accompanied by the variant readings from
manuscripts and subsequent editions,
we provide the reader not only an
acceptable text but the materials necessary to reconstruct any portion of
xxi
Browning's work as i t developed over the years. This enables him both
to study the work i n its variant forms and the poetic process by which i t
came into existence.
T h e presentation of variants is not entirely conventional. Indeed,
there is no one way to offer variants. We feel justified,therefore,in
having developed a method consistent with the principles
of good textualpractice andappropriatetotheparticularrequirements
of our
presenttask.We
believe that i t has theadvantage of presentingthe
history of the variants in the order i n which they appeared. from thefirst
form through the final one. antl in a way in which the full text of each
line of each edition is most accurately antl readily reconstructed.
I n presenting the variants from the1889 text we print at the bottom
of the page variants found in the manuscripts, when available, and
in
the first and subsequent e d i t i o n s t h a t is, variants found in the primary
materials. I t seems to us that we can give a clearer, more concise notion
of Browning's editorial function if we separate primary materials from
secondary materials as these are defined in item 111. Moreover, we must
assume that additional manuscripts may become available between now
andthetimethe
last volume of thisedition i s published,makinga
supplemental volume of variants necessary. We have decided, therefore,
all variants derived from
secondary
that i t would belogicaltoplace
materials together in a final volume. This final volume will also include
T h o m m l V o ) ~ l w o ~Eud
l / ~ ,of S/1-c!ffoo,.clby John Forster, to which Browning's contribution was apparently considerable butis so far indeterminable.
zyxw
zyxw
zyxwvu
zyxwv
zyx
zyxwvutsr
zyxwvut
TABLE or: S I G N S
All signsused by Browning himself have been avoided.T h e symbols
essential to an understanding of the variant notes are
set out in the
following tableof signs:
Q . . . §
I
11,111, . . .
Editor's
note
omitted
Words
Line break
Line break plusoneormore
lines wilhout internal variants
All variants are placed at the bottom of the page of text to which
they refer. A variant is generally preceded and followed by a pickup and
a drop word (example a). N o note terminates with a punctuation mark
unless the punctuation mark comes at the end of a line. I f a variant
drops or adds a punctuation mark, the nextword is added (example 6).
xxii
zyxwv
zyxw
zyxwvu
zyxwvutsrqponmlkjih
zyxw
zyxw
zyxwvutsr
zyxw
If the normal pickup word has appeared previously in the same line, the
note begins with the word preceding it. If the normal
drop word appears
subsequently i n the line, the next word is added (example c). If 21 single
capitalized pickup word occurs within the line. i t is accompanied by the
precedingword.Nopickupword,however,
is used forany variant
consisting of aninternalchange,
for example.ahyphen
in acompounded word, an apostrophe, atense change, or a spelling change. Nor
is a dropword used when the variantcomes at the endof a line (example
e). Illustrations from Sodello:
(1 fill1 1840: butthatappeared
1863: butthisappeared
0 1) atend ofline:
1091
1840: it, "taken < > intrigue:" 1863: i t , taken C > intrigue.
2 ) 821 1840: forests like 1863: forests,like
c 1831 18-10: afterclueantl
1863: afterclue,antl
771 I 8 f 0 : Who managed < > that night by
1863: She managed < > that, night by night, 1888: by night
d 1) a single capitalized pickup word:
fill 1840: Now-nor, this 1863: Now-not this
2 ) a single capitalized pickupword within line:
2951 1840: at Padua to repulse the
1863: at Padua who repulsed the
e 1) 2851 1840: shall 1863:should
2 ) at endof line:
861
18-10: sky: 1863: sky.
Each recorded variant will be assumed to be incorporated in the next
edition if there is no indication otherwise.
All characterdesignationswhichappear
i n variantentries will
conform to the 1889 text as i t appears in this edition. I n typing variants
i n theplays, we ignore character designations unless the designation
comes within a numberecl line, in which case we treat i t as any other
word. In such cases, therefore, it is used as pickup or drop word. When i t
isused as a pickup word, however. the general rule regarding pickup
words which begin with a capital letter does not apply.
VI1
ANNOTAlIONS
Browning scholarship is not yet fully mature. T h e notes we have
presented,therefore,arenotintendedtobeexhaustiveorfinal.
The
format of the edition has been planned to allow for revision of the notes
i t can be
without disturbing the text.
If the textprovessatisfactory,
reprinted indefinitely withnew sets of notes.
As a general principle, we have annotated proper names, phrases
that function as proper names, and words or groups of words the full
meaning of which requires factual, historical, or literary background.
xxiii
zyx
zyxwv
zyxwvuts
zyxwvu
Thus. we have attempted to holdinterpretationtoaminimum,although we realize thatthe act of selection itself is to some extent
interpretative.
Specifically, we have annotated the following: ( I ) proper names; ( 2 )
geographical locations; (3) allusions to Biblical and other literature; (4)
words not included in IVcb.\ld5 Collrgicrtc Diclio)lory,Seventh Edition
(sincesome limits mmt be imposed upon our
work a n d becausethis
dictionary is generallyacceptedandreadilyavailable.Weannotate
words used by Browning in a sense other tllan that give11 in this dictionary. For a more accurate understanding
we have relied heavily upon
(5) otheritemsrequiringfactual
SamuelJohnson’sdictionary);and
information which is not of current common knowledge or easily available. All passages i n a language other than English are translated into
English.Occasional quotations fromBrowning’ssourcesareincluded
when such source quotations seem especially pertinent and are of tlifficult access.
For notes. particularlyonhistorical
figures antlevents, we have
tentled to prefer fullnessand even to risk the tangential and unessential.
As ;I result. some o f the information provided may be perhaps unnecessary for the mature scholar.On the other hand,i t is impossible to assume
that all who use this edition-the ordinary reader and the undergraduate and graduate student,for exanlple-will be fully equipped to assimilate unaitlecl all of Browning’s copiousli tcrary, historical,and mythological allusions. Thus we have directed our effortstoward an audience
conceived as a continuum from therelatively uninformed to the trained.
zyxwvuts
zyxwv
zyxw
zyxwvu
I A H L E 0 1 ; AUIIREVIAI’IONS AND SHORT TIILES USED I N ANNOTAI‘IONS
B
DeVane. H t i k .
Browning
William
DeVane.
C.
d Brozoning Hovclbook.
New York: Appleton-Century-C:r~~ft.
19.55.
Griffinantl MinchinW.
H. Griffin and H. C . Minchin. T / ILife
~ of
Robc1.1Bj.ozut7i~1g.
New York: R.l:tcmillan, I 5) t o .
Hood, Ll1.s.
Thurman L. Hood, etl. L(,/lcrs of Ro6r1.l
B~~ownirrg
Colleclcd by T . J . IVisc. New Haven:
Yale University Press, 1933.
On-, H k 6 .
Mrs. Sutherland
Orr.
Handbook l o I / I F Ir’oi-ks
of liobert Browning. New Edition. Kevised antl
in part Part Kewritten by Freclric G . Kenyon.
Boston and New York: Houghton Mifflin Company, I 89 I .
P -c
Charlotte Porter and Helen ’4.Clarke, eds. T h e
Cornplele Il’oyk.5 (Jf Robe7.1 B ~ O 7 0 7 7 I 1 7 ~I .2 vols.
Issued first in 1898 and reissued frequently. I t
appeared in 1910as the De Luxe Edition and i n
I 9 12 as the Pocket Edition. New York: Crowell
and Company.
xxiv
VI11
zyxwvutsrq
zyxwvutsr
zyxwvu
zyxwvuts
zyxwvuts
TABLE OF MANUSCRIPTS
T h e followingmanuscriptsareknown
to exist inthelocations
indicated:
Prrrncels1rs
Forster and Dy