point of merit, far superior both in spirit and harmony to the German, which is written in a stanza producing an effect very unsatisfactory to the ear.[1]
In connection with Lewis's use of Taylor's first version should be mentioned another reprint of the poem, as showing the regard in which it was held. The Annual Register, which was accustomed to print a few poems in each number, in its volume for 1796 gave Taylor's translation "from the Monthly Magazine," with this note:
The following translation (made some years since) of a celebrated piece, of which other versions have appeared, possesses so much peculiar and intrinsic merit that we have given it the preference in this selection.
This is largely a reprint of the note preceding the poem in the original place of publication, but the last clause is altered to show the opinion of the new editor.
Before the close of the year 1796 Taylor again printed his translation of Lenore, this time with considerable alterations, but still without his name. This second version bore the title: "Ellenore, a Ballad, originally written in German by G. A. Bürger. Norwich, March; London, Johnson."[2] It was perhaps the appearance of Scott's version in October that led Taylor to revise and print again. At least Scott had sent a copy of his William and Helen to Taylor, with a letter dated Nov. 25, and the latter seems not to have printed before December. This second version of Taylor differs from the first in three significant changes, in minor verbal alterations, and in giving up a large part of the archaic spelling. The more significant changes are the omission of stanza six of the first version, and considerable alterations of stanzas thirty-four and forty-six.[3]
- ↑ In the light of this note it is difficult to explain Southey's language about Lewis having "hampered himself with a very inferior" translation of Lenore. There is a bare possibility that Southey had received Taylor's second version late in 1796, or early in 1797, and with this in mind thought Taylor's first version, which Lewis had, but the authorship of which he did not know, was by another. At least this would fit in with Southey's letter to Bedford (see p. 33), greatly underrating Taylor's translation when it first appeared in the Monthly Magazine.
On the other hand, Southey may have referred to Scott's version since, as we shall see later, Lewis knew of Scott's work and apparently thought of using it. - ↑ See Monthly Review, Feb., 1797 (N. S. XXIII, 34). This review mentions only Johnson of London as the publisher, but the Monthly Mirror (II, 480), as noted by Mr. Colwell in Mod. Lang. Notes XXIV, 254, gives Norwich as well as London, after a common habit of provincial publishers who arranged to sell their books in London. This, as Mr. Colwell also points out, sets right the errors of Brandl and Greg regarding this issue. The Monthly Review shows that the poem was issued in quarto and folio forms at two and five shillings respectively. No copy of this edition is in the British Museum, and perhaps none exists.
- ↑ Stanza six of the first version, omitted entirely in the second, reads:Stanza forty-six of the first version, forty-five of the second was entirely recast. It first read:She askte of all the passing traine
For him she wisht to see:
But none of all the passing traine
Could tell if lived hee.They heede his calle and husht the sowne;
The biere was seen no more;
And followde him ore feeld and flood
Yet faster than before.
