176 Carlyle Studies Annual

X

Y Z

Rue Neuve de Petits Champ No 66 Michel Fangeranu Perfuming Coiffeur

Captain Hobert Roberts

Rowen Rawlingson

  

“Things removed that hidden in thee lie”: and the Folger Library

In addition to being the greatest single repository of first-folio editions of the works of William Shakespeare, the Folger Shakespeare Library in Washington, DC, contains a modest but interesting collection of Carlyle materials, all related to Shakespeare of course, an archive that now includes an annotated volume and three previously unpublished Carlyle letters. David Mather Masson (1822–1907; ODNB) was a biographer, a literary scholar, an editor, a distinguished professor, and a friend of Thomas and Jane Welsh Carlyle. He knew the Carlyles from the early months of 1844 (he met JWC earlier, in the summer of 1843) to the bitter end, and until he moved from London to in 1865, Masson was a close friend and frequent visitor. In February 1885, responding to J. A. Froude’s Miscellanies 177

Life of Carlyle (1882, 1884), Masson delivered two lectures on Carlyle in an attempt to present a more accurate portrait of his friend’s life. These lectures were published by Macmillan in a volume entitled Carlyle Personally and in His Writings (1885). Masson saw in Carlyle an “ideal of essential originality and greatness” at the same time he confessed that he “never could adopt all the articles of Carlyle’s creed” (50). Masson, of course was fascinated by biography, and wrote many of them, including his influential The Life of (1859–94). After his death, Masson’s wife and daughters announced his desire that his own letters and biography were not to be published. According to his ODNB biographer Sondra Miley Clooney, attention to this wish has made the legacy of this important figure rather sketchy. Masson was not as disinclined about other works he had left incomplete or unpublished. Borrowing from her father’s reminiscence of Carlyle, Masson’s daughter Emily Rosaline (1835–1913) edited and arranged Masson’s lectures on Shakespeare in a book similarly entitled Shakespeare Personally (Smith and Elder, 1914). In it, one finds an exceedingly compelling footnote: “[I]n 1846, David Masson began in Edinburgh his own lifelong study of Shakespeare by devoting some months to what he afterwards called ‘a fond juvenile study’ of the Sonnets, and writing a commentary. This commentary was read at the time by Carlyle, and is annotated by him. R. M.” (194n). On 6 July 1848, Carlyle wrote to his friend John Forster to tell him that he and the visiting Ralph Waldo Emerson were off to see Stonehenge: A more important part of my errand, was to speak with you about a certain Ms. on Shakspeare’s Sonnets, by Masson (whom you once saw at Chelsea), which Chapman lately had in hand, and I guess consulted you about. Has the Ms. any worth; and if so, what? Masson is a man of real parts; but I fear this Shakspeare Enterprise is not a very promising one. However, the poor fellow is very anxious about it; would very fain see it printed, I find; and cannot rest till he have exhausted all possibilities. Would the Longmans have any chance to try it?— On the whole, is it really a book of merit? Does it prove the Sonnet hypothesis, or leave it still hypothetical? If you can do anything for poor Masson and it, I shall be really 178 Carlyle Studies Annual

glad. At all events, you can tell me what degree of worth and likelihood seems to be in it. (CL 23: 62–63) According to the editors of the CL, Masson wrote at length to Carlyle on 19 July, “thanking him for ‘the kind letter’ [whereabouts unknown] and ‘the trouble you have taken with my manuscript. Although, as is natural, I regret that any part of the work should have broken down under your inspection.” This manuscript, entitled “Autobiography of Shakespeare from His Thirty-Fourth to his Thirty-Ninth Year, Derived from his Sonnets” (S.a.169–170), now resides at the Folger. The library’s Hamnet online catalogue describes the item as follows: “Title: Copy of Autobiography of Shakespeare as revealed by his sonnets, 1597–1602 [manuscript], ca. 1850. Description: 2 v. Notes: Written ca. 1846. Annotated by Thomas Carlyle.” The two volumes, no doubt copied from the original by an amanu- ensis, are beautiful objects indeed, and worthy of notice. At first appraisal, the annotations in these volumes appear to be customarily Carlylean. There are not many of them, and they exude the same brand of editorial acumen and opinion that mark other examples of Carlyle’s annotation (see, for example, his annotations to Elizabeth Barrett Browning’s Aurora Leigh, CL 32: 228–42). When Masson writes, “the English tongue is mightily enriched & gorgeously invested in rare ornaments & resplendent habiliments, by Sir Philip Sidney, Spenser, Daniel, Drayton, Warner, Shakespeare, Marlowe, & Chapman” (32), Carlyle responds in the margin with a clarification, “Mr Warner wrote Albions England, a historical poem from the Deluge to Elizabeth” and also a bibliographic reference: See “Argentile & Curan / Percy reliques.” Carlyle is referring to Reliques of Ancient English Poetry (1840), edited by Thomas Percy, who includes Warner’s poem “Argentile & Curan” (148–52). Along with editorial improvements, one finds in these annotations examples of distinctly Carlylean personality. At one point, in response to Sonnet CXI, there is a comment alluding to a work dear to Carlyle’s career and heart: “Shakespeare reminiscing about his professional ‘Wilhelm Meister’s journey’” (1: 156). Later, when Masson claims that in the sonnets Shakespeare expresses his weariness with writing plays, the commentary becomes more brusque: “His disgust is with play acting & perhaps ‘the incidents of his professional tour’ (pp Miscellanies 179

135/6) Not with writing his plays tho his ‘heart blood’ may be in them (see two following sonnets— I find the suggestion abominable)” (314). The balance of Carlyle’s comments serve as a kind of cursory corrective to Masson’s reading and theory that the sonnets suggest a biography of sorts. The final annotation to the volumes occurs when a line from the letter of dedication written by John Heminge and Henry Condell affixed to the first folio edition of Shakespeare’s works1623 ( ) is ticked and underlined: “than to descend to the reading of these trifles” 2( : 141; see The Riverside Shakespeare 93). Heminge and Condell were being ironic or at least artificially humble when they wrote these words to their august patrons; Carlyle’s thoughts and intent may have been more critical in his final insinuation about Masson’s disquisition on Shakespeare’s life derived from the sonnets. There are two annotations that both stand out and interject an element of mystery in this text. At one point in the text, there is a reference to a friend of Shakespeare’s: “The friend’s name being also ‘Will’ then Sonnets become plainer / Furnivall introd to Leopold Shaks.” (1: 217). In his introduction, F. J. Furnivall (1825–1910; ODNB), textual scholar, editor, co-creator of the Oxford English Dictionary, and founder of the New Shakspere Society (1873), claims that the sonnets fall into two groups, the first 1( –126) addressed to Shakespeare’s “fair friend Will” and the second (127–54) to the Bard’s “dark mistress” (lxiii). But it is not the meaning of the annotation that creates the difficulty. The problem stems from the fact that The Leopold Shakespeare, called so because of its dedication to Queen Victoria’s youngest son, Prince Leopold (1853–1884; ODNB), was not published until 1877. By the Folger’s estimate the text was written in 1846 and copied circa 1850. The evidence in the correspondence between Carlyle and Masson confirms 1848 as the date Carlyle had the MS in his possession. Carlyle did not write this comment. The second reference to Furnivall’s introduction is found in the second volume: “As to Chapman see Furs Introduction to Leopold Shakespeare / p lxv” (98). Again, it is highly doubtful that this comment was made by Carlyle. In the end, it is impossible to determine how much of this commentary actually belongs to Carlyle, if any. Time and memory are not the friends of accuracy when it comes 180 Carlyle Studies Annual to history. Both Masson and Carlyle were very aware of that fact. Carlyle read it and responded to Masson about it. He told his daughter that Carlyle annotated it. True, at least to some extent. In a more important sense, the annotations disappoint because they offer precious little in the way of understanding Shakespeare or of engaging with Carlyle’s own commentary on him in On Heroes, Hero-Worship, and the Heroic in History (1841). On the subject of Masson’s “Autobiography,” the rest is silence.

Brent E. Kinser Western Carolina University

Thomas Carlyle to John Grieg, 27 August 1843. MS: Folger Shakespeare Library Acc. cs663 (Y.c.464 [1–3]). Pbd. in the CLO as a snippet from the catalog of Anderson Auction Galleries, New York, 6 December 1915 (see also CL 17: 88). A similar letter of introduction for Macready, also held at the Folger (MS Add 1031 [Y.c.6548]) and pbd. in the CLO, was written by TC to Ralph Waldo Emerson on the same date (see also CL 17:87–88). John Grieg (1779–1858), born in Moffat, emigrated in 1797 and settled in Canandaigua, New York, where he became a lawyer and a banker and amassed significant land holdings. A Whig, he served briefly in the US House of Representatives in 1841. The CLO contains four additional TC to John Grieg letters: one MS is held at McMasters University Library (17 June 1843), two at Yale University Library (20 June 1846 and 17 April 1847), and one at Huntington Library (19 April 1853).

Scotsbrig, Annandale 27 August, 1843 — My dear Sir, If Mr Macready our great English Actor pass near you, pray give him welcome. His fame as an Artist is wide enough; but you will find him, I think, equally worth knowing as a man. No public character in this Island has, to my mind, so distinguished himself for honourable demeanour in late years. A man universally esteemed; and truly estimable whether in his Miscellanies 181 public or his private capacity. He, on his side, wishes to know whatsoever especially whosoever, that is best worth knowing, may lie within his present line of opportunities in your new country. For your old Country’s sake, and our sake, and his own when you know him, may this Traveller be welcome to you. My wife is silent on this occasion only because she is not here. She is in London, well and busy at home, whither I am now soon to return. With many kind wishes and regards, Yours most truly T. Carlyle John Greig Esq &c &c Canandaigua, New York

Thomas Carlyle to John William Donaldson, 5 February 1838. MS: Folger Shakespeare Library, Acc. 2056 (Y.c464 [1–3]). Hitherto unpbd. John William Donaldson (1811–61; ODNB), classicist and philologist at Trinity College, Cambridge. He was the nephew of JWC’s godmother and her sisters, the Donaldsons, who lived at Sunnybank in Haddington. In his formative years he was articled to his uncle Alexander Donaldson (d. 1840), a Haddington solicitor. When TC wrote this letter, Donaldson, still in his twenties, was a tutor and a fellow at Trinity. In 1838, TC was organizing the location for a second lecture series, the first (1837) having consisted of six lectures on German literature. He was to focus this second series on the historic literature of Europe beginning with the Greeks. In the end, the lectures were given not at Cambridge but at an address in the affluent Portman Square. Pauca verba, few words. TC spoke and wrote continually on the concept of “silence,” and probably was influenced in his own understanding of the concept by Goethe. TC used the term pauca verba so frequently in early letters (for which see CLO) that it may be regarded as “coterie speech.” Frequently, TC attributed the term to Corporal Nym in Shakespeare’s Henry 182 Carlyle Studies Annual

V, but not always. Because materials collected by the Folger must have some Shakespearian relevance, it may have been the mention of “Corporal Nym” that made this letter accessionable.

5. Cheyne Row, Chelsea 5th feby, 1838 —

My dear Sir, Accept my thanks for the Letter you write me; for the trouble you have taken on my behalf. I may discover now, on authentic evidence, that my suggestive friends here were of sanguine temper; that the project of lecturing at Cambridge was a painted cloud, and must, for the present, content itself to dissolve again into the common atmosphere, and become blue and invisible. If I ever pass thro’ your seat of the Muses, I shall be right glad to see all friends there. In the mean time, I think we may confidently commit German Literature, in Cambridge and elsewhere, to its own star. My proselytizing-spirit was at no time irrepressible; and now, and on that subject, it is ready to hold its peace for unlimited periods. Pauca verba, as Corporal Nym says. I heard lately from your Uncle in Haddington; all was well there. My Wife sends her compliments. Believe me always, very truly yours T. Carlyle

Thomas Carlyle to John William Parker Jr., 12 August 1853. Ms: Folger Shakespeare Library Acc. 790 (Y.c.464 [1–3]). Hitherto unpbd. John W. Parker, Jr. (1820–60), of the publishers John W. Parker & Son, edited Fraser’s Magazine from 1847 until his untimely death. The “Writer . . . of considerable talent” was Delia Salter Bacon (1811–59), and the Folger Shakespeare Library possesses the original holographs for the correspondence from TC and JWC that is reproduced in the Carlyle Letters from published sources only. Miscellanies 183

Chelsea, 12 Augt, 1853—

My dear Sir, Yesterday in your absence, I left a Paper; on which your candid judgement, as to its fitness forFraser especially, is much wanted. The Writer, a person of considerable talent, of perfect respectability and mature years, has formed by some means or other an altogether new, and to us most surprising, conviction about the real Authorship of the Plays we call “Shakespeare’s”; and is determined at all hazards, and against all difficulties, to promulgate and make good the same: this is the first sally made, in that big battle; and you now are to tell us freely what you think of it,—above all, whether Fraser will have it or not. I myself have no interest in the matter; do not, with the least completeness, understand the Author’s theory about Shakespeare, or even believe what I do understand of it,—or in the least read any new theory on the subject;—but I have read part of the Paper, know the Author; and for many reasons, am bound to put the thing before you, and certify as above. It seems ingenious eloquent writing, of its kind; perhaps, under some head or other, it may prove admissible; perhaps not. In the former case, of course the author wd shew face, and consult &c; in the latter, we are obliged to be altogether anonymous. Without hurrying yourself; yet so soon as convenient. Yours always truly T. Carlyle

  