171
Broadstone, Dorset.
March 23rd 1904.
Ernest Marriott Esq.2
Dear sir,
Many thanks for your suggestions which I have followed substantially, though they were only just in time. I have printed Riley's3 version for his "" exactly, — verse by verse, to illustrate my criticisms. The more I consider the matter the more I am convinced he did not compose the poem. It looks to me very much as if he really got hold of the poem in [2] the form I have it or nearly, — that to save himself from exact copying he made the alterations in words, which he might think would make it more like his own work, and the alterations in the arrangement of lines &c, so that it might be accepted as a bad imitation of Poe.4 But the curious thing is why he did not alter it more? I should think this article would bring out something from those who have copies of my brothers [3] version. I had answer from Mr. Richardson.5 He gives me Riley's story as now universally accepted in the U.S. He says the different readings "might readily be made by a copyist," and that the claims of "a clever poet of unblemished reputation" cannot be upset. He does not think it to be even "one of the better parodies of Poe.".
The curious thing to me is how the weak & even stupid readings in Riley's version, can coexist with the exquisite poetic feeling & rhythm of the whole poem!
Yours very truly| Alfred R. Wallace [signature]
[4] P.S. Richardson, however, refers to my "unquestionably preferable printing of the lines," and my "different readings" — but evidently thinks them of no importance. To me they seem vital. They show that Riley did not & does not appreciate the beauty of the poem he wrote!.
A.R.W.
Status: Draft transcription [Letter (WCP4921.5334)]
For more information about the transcriptions and metadata, see https://wallaceletters.myspecies.info/content/epsilon
[1]1 [p. 18]
Broadstone, Dorset.
March 23rd. 1904
Ernest Marriott, Esq.
Dear Sir:
Many thanks for your suggestions which I have followed substantially, though they were only just in time. I have printed Riley's version from his "Armazindy" exactly,—verse by verse, to illustrate my criticisms. The more I consider the matter the more I am convinced he did not compose the poem. It looks to me very much as if he really got hold of the poem in the form I have it or nearly,—that to cover himself from exact copying he made the alterations in words, which he might think would make it more like his own work, and the alteration in the arrangement of lines &c. so that it might be accepted as a bad imitation of Poe. But the curious thing is why he did not alter it more?
I should think this article would bring out something from those who have copies of my brother's version. I had an answer from Mr. Richardson. He gives me Riley's story as now universally accepted in the U. S. He says the different readings "might readily be made by a copyist" and that the claim of "a clever poet of unblemished reputation" cannot be upset. He does not think it to be even "one of the better parodies of Poe."
The curious thing to me is how the weak & even stupid readings in Riley's version, can coexist with the exquisite poetic feeling and rhythm of the whole poem!
Yours very truly
(signed) Alfred R. Wallace.
P.S. Richardson, however, refers to my "unquestionably preferable printing of the lines", and my "different readings"—but evidently thinks them of no importance. To me they seem vital. They show that Riley did not & does not appreciate the beauty of the poem he wrote!
(signed) A. R. W.
Status: Draft transcription [Published letter (WCP4921.5508)]
For more information about the transcriptions and metadata, see https://wallaceletters.myspecies.info/content/epsilon
Please cite as “WCP4921,” in Beccaloni, G. W. (ed.), Ɛpsilon: The Alfred Russel Wallace Collection accessed on 27 April 2024, https://epsilon.ac.uk/view/wallace/letters/WCP4921