Excerpt

Excerpt from Lucasta, by Richard Lovelace

On the title-page of the copy of LUCASTA, 1649, preserved among
the King's Pamphlets in the British Museum, the original possessor
has, according to his usual practice, marked the date of purchase,
viz., June 21; perhaps, and indeed probably, that was also
the date of publication. A copy of LUCASTA, 1649, occasionally
appears in catalogues, purporting to have belonged to Anne,
Lady Lovelace; but the autograph which it contains was taken
from a copy of Massinger's BONDMAN (edit. 1638, 4to.), which her
Ladyship once owned. This copy of Lovelace's LUCASTA is bound up
with the copy of the POSTHUME POEMS, once in the possession
of Benjamin Rudyerd, Esq., grandson and heir of the distinguished
Sir Benjamin Rudyerd, as appears also from his autograph
on the title.<1.1>

In the original edition of the two parts of LUCASTA, 1649-59,
the arrangement of the poems appears, like that of the text,
to have been left to chance, and the result has been a total
absence of method. I have therefore felt it part of my duty to
systematise the contents of the volume, and, so far as it lay in my
power, to place the various pieces of which it consisted in their
proper order; all the odes, sonnets, &c. addressed or referring to
the lady who is concealed under the names of LUCASTA and AMARANTHA
have now been, for the first time, brought together; and the copies
of commendatory and gratulatory verses, with one exception prefixed
by Lovelace to various publications by friends during his life-time,
either prior to the appearance of the first part of his own
poems in 1649, or between that date and the issue of his Remains
ten years later, have been placed by themselves, as an act of
justice to the writer, of whose style and genius they are, as is
generally the case with all compositions of the kind, by no means
favourable specimens. The translations from Catullus, Ausonius,
&c. have been left as they stood; they are, for the most part,
destitute of merit; but as they were inserted by the Poet's
brother, when he edited the posthumous volume, I did not think it
right to disturb them, and they have been retained in their full
integrity.

Lovelace's LUCASTA was included by the late S. W. Singer, Esq.,
in his series of "Early English Poets;" but that gentleman,
besides striking out certain passages, which he, somewhat
unaccountably and inconsistently, regarded as indelicate,
omitted a good deal of preliminary matter in the form of
commendatory verses which, though possibly of small worth,
were necessary to render the book complete; it is possible,
that Mr. Singer made use of a copy of LUCASTA which was deficient
at the commencement. It may not be generally known that,
independently of its imperfections in other respects,
Mr. Singer's reprint abounds with the grossest blunders.

---

Explanation

This excerpt is not a poem by Richard Lovelace but rather a prefatory note (likely from an editor or scholarly introduction) to the 1649 edition of Lucasta, Lovelace’s collection of poems. Below is a detailed breakdown of the passage, focusing on its content, context, themes, and significance, with an emphasis on the text itself.

---

1. Context of the Excerpt

• Source: This appears in an editorial introduction to Lucasta (1649), Lovelace’s most famous poetry collection. The text discusses the publication history, ownership, and editorial decisions regarding the volume.
• Author of the Note: Likely a 19th-century editor (possibly William Carew Hazlitt, who edited Lovelace’s works in 1864, or another scholar) explaining the book’s provenance and organization.
• Richard Lovelace (1618–1657): A Cavalier poet known for his loyalty to King Charles I, his aristocratic wit, and his love poetry (e.g., "To Lucasta, Going to the Wars" and "To Althea, From Prison").

---

2. Summary of the Excerpt

The passage provides bibliographical and editorial details about Lucasta, including:

1. Ownership & Publication Date:

   • A copy in the British Museum (now British Library) was purchased on June 21, 1649, likely the publication date.
   • Some copies falsely claim to have belonged to Anne, Lady Lovelace (the poet’s wife), but the autograph is from a different book (The Bondman by Philip Massinger).
   • The copy is bound with Posthume Poems (posthumous works), once owned by Benjamin Rudyerd, grandson of a prominent Parliamentarian.

2. Editorial Criticisms of the Original Edition:

   • The 1649–1659 editions of Lucasta were poorly organized, with poems arranged "by chance" and no clear method.
   • The editor (writing later) claims to have reorganized the poems for coherence:
     • Grouped poems addressed to Lucasta/Amarantha (Lovelace’s poetic names for his beloved, likely his wife).
     • Separated commendatory verses (praises by friends) and translations (from Catullus, Ausonius, etc.), which the editor dismisses as "destitute of merit" but retains out of respect for Lovelace’s brother (who edited the posthumous volume).

3. Critique of S.W. Singer’s 19th-Century Edition:

   • Samuel Weller Singer (1783–1858) included Lucasta in his Early English Poets series but:
     • Censored "indelicate" passages (without clear justification).
     • Omitted commendatory verses, possibly due to an incomplete source copy.
     • Made "gross blunders" in transcription, rendering his edition unreliable.

---

3. Key Themes in the Excerpt

While not a literary work itself, the passage reveals themes relevant to textual scholarship, editorial ethics, and literary reputation:

1. Authenticity & Provenance:

   • The note emphasizes verifying ownership (e.g., debunking the Lady Lovelace autograph myth) and publication dates (June 21, 1649).
   • Highlights how books were physically bound with other works (e.g., Posthume Poems), reflecting 17th-century publishing practices.

2. Editorial Authority & Intervention:

   • The editor justifies reorganizing Lovelace’s poems, arguing the original was chaotic. This raises questions about:
     • Fidelity to the author’s intent: Did Lovelace want the poems unordered, or was it a printer’s oversight?
     • Reader accessibility: Grouping poems by addressee (Lucasta) makes the collection more coherent.
   • The dismissal of translations and commendatory verses as "meritless" reflects 19th-century tastes, which privileged originality over imitation.

3. Censorship & Scholarly Integrity:

   • Singer’s omissions and errors are criticized as unfaithful to the text. This underscores debates about:
     • Moral censorship: Singer’s excision of "indelicate" lines (common in Victorian editions).
     • Textual accuracy: The editor’s disdain for Singer’s "blunders" suggests a positivist approach to editing (prioritizing the "original" text).

4. Literary Reputation & Canonization:

   • The note implies Lucasta was important enough to reprint (by Singer) but poorly served by earlier editors.
   • The separation of "minor" works (translations, commendatory verses) reflects a hierarchy of value in Lovelace’s oeuvre, elevating the love poems.

---

4. Literary Devices & Style

Though not a poem, the excerpt uses rhetorical and scholarly devices:

• Juxtaposition:
  • Contrasts the disorganized original with the editor’s systematic rearrangement.
  • Opposes Singer’s censored edition with the "complete" version.
• Appeal to Authority:
  • Cites physical evidence (autographs, British Museum copies) to validate claims.
  • Uses moral judgment ("grossest blunders," "destitute of merit") to assert editorial superiority.
• Irony:
  • The editor retains "meritless" translations out of respect for Lovelace’s brother, while criticizing Singer for omissions—highlighting the subjectivity of editorial choices.
• Metatextuality:
  • The passage is about the book itself, drawing attention to its material history (bindings, autographs) and editorial layers.

---

5. Significance of the Excerpt

1. Historical Insight into Publishing:

   • Reveals how 17th-century books were produced (lack of standardized organization) and 19th-century editors "corrected" them.
   • Shows the physicality of books (bound with other works, annotated by owners).

2. Editorial Ethics:

   • Raises questions about how much editors should alter texts. Lovelace’s original disorder might have been intentional (e.g., mimicking the chaos of love or war).
   • Critiques Victorian moralism in editing (Singer’s censorship).

3. Lovelace’s Legacy:

   • The focus on Lucasta/Amarantha poems reinforces Lovelace’s reputation as a love poet and Cavalier loyalist.
   • The dismissal of translations reflects a Romantic/Victorian bias against classical imitation, though Lovelace’s era valued such exercises.

4. Scholarly Debates:

   • Illustrates competing approaches to editing:
     • Preservationist (keep the original, even if flawed).
     • Interventionist (reorganize for clarity).
   • Highlights how later editions shape our reading of early modern texts.

---

6. Connection to Lovelace’s Poetry

While the excerpt is prose, it frames how we read Lovelace’s poems:

• Lucasta as a Figure: The editor’s grouping of poems to "Lucasta" reinforces her as a central muse, though her identity (Anne Lovelace?) remains debated.
• Cavalier Context: The disorganized original might reflect the turmoil of the English Civil War (1642–1651), during which Lovelace fought and was imprisoned.
• Posthumous Reputation: The note shows how Lovelace’s brother and later editors controlled his legacy, sometimes suppressing or altering his work.

---

Conclusion

This excerpt is a scholarly meta-commentary on Lucasta, blending bibliographical detective work, editorial justification, and literary criticism. It reveals:

• The material history of the book (ownership, binding, publication).
• The subjectivity of editing (what to include, exclude, or rearrange).
• The evolution of Lovelace’s reputation from Cavalier poet to Victorian-edited "classic."

While not a poem, it shapes how we encounter Lovelace’s verse, reminding us that every edition is an interpretation. The editor’s choices—like Lovelace’s own poetic personas—are acts of construction, not neutral transmission.