It has probably been mentioned by a listee that Empson's point about the
notes to the Mariner is that they import a meaning into the original text
which, according to Empson, was not part of the first version, about which,
he says , Coleridge was initially unsure as to its significance. As he put
it in a 1964 essay: "Coleridge did not discover the meaning till after he
had written and then ratted on it as fast as he could." This reading is,
of course, part and parcel of Empson's latter-day campaign against
creeping-Jesus in the academy (which virtually amounted to an obsession in
his later prose). This aside, the original poem differs in other respects
from the later edition, and its inclusion in the Oxford Book can surely be
justified stylistically (the greater archaisms, etc.).
With regard to Empson's poetry, Haffenden's new edition, with its bumper
notes, is for this reader an absolute delight. And for readers new to his
poetry, try the prose and drama in _The Royal Beasts_ too. (Being a
graduate of Sheffield, I may be biased.)
Alex
At 12:04 27/04/00 +0100, you wrote:
>After I sent my last, I found myself thinking with some surprise that I'd
>never actually read the Ancient Mariner without the notes, and would like
>to, though whether the Oxford Book is the right way to keep this version in
>print is another question. And though I'm not exactly a hardline
>postmodernist, I do think it's a good thing that certain texts are available
>in multiple form, both as a reminder of the complexities of writing in
>general and because some texts reward that degree of scrutiny whether you're
>an academic or just a fan.
>
>Somebody once did a spoof rejection letter in which an editor thanked Mr
>Eliot for the chance to read his fascinating experimental poem 'Notes to the
>Waste Land', but added that he (TSE) had accidentally appended to it a few
>pages of private jottings on birdsong, quotations from the classics etc.
>
>Best wishes
>
>Matthew Francis
>[mailto:[log in to unmask]
>01443 482856
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Martin J. Walker [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
>Sent: 27 April 2094 00:51
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Re: The Grime of the Ancient Mariner
>
>
>Obviously I can't go into it here, Matthew,(a) it would take too long and b)
>I can't remember any details, but the changes involve more than the glosses
>and started when he was intimidated by Wordsworth's rather contemptuous
>attitude to his fantastic tale, I think (without having reread all the
>commentary to check) . Naturally one can take the rather post-modern
>attitude that the more the merrier, as you and others do, but Empson and
>after him Ricks seem to have a yen for the unadulterated original, and after
>all, Jon, they haven't actually erased it from the scrolls of human memory,
>have they? (I prefer the 1805 Prelude to 1850's, like many others, but both
>remain available.) By the way, I created an ambiguity with "also... decoy" -
>I meant that Eliot's notes had that quality in addition, not that
>Coleridge's glosses had it too. I should have said Eliot's notes are meant
>to distract one from certain meanings of the poem and are probably a bit of
>a Possum legpull.
>Cheers, Martin
>
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|