The allusion in the foregoing letter to the work on the Sonnet which I was aiming to supply, bears reference to the anthology subsequently published under the title of Sonnets of Three Centuries. My first idea was simply to write a survey of the art and history of the sonnet, printing only such examples as might be embraced by my critical comments. Rossetti’s generous sympathy was warmly engaged in this enterprise.
It would really warm me up much [he writes] to know of
your editing a sonnet book You would have my best
cooperation as to suggesting examples, but I certainly think
that English sonnets (original and exceptionally translated
ones, the latter only perhaps) should be the sole scheme.
Curiously enough, some one wrote me the other day as to a
projected series of living sonneteers (other collections
being only of those preceding our time). I have half
committed myself to contributing, but not altogether as yet.
The name of the projector, S. Waddington, is new to me, and
I don’t know who is to publish.... Really you ought to do
the sonnet-book you aspire to do. I know but of one London
critic (Theodore Watts) whom I should consider the leading
man for such a purpose, and I have tried to incite him to it
so often that I know now he won’t do it; but I have always
meant a complete series in which the dead poets must, of
course, predominate. As to a series of the living only, I
told you of a Mr. Waddington who seems engaged on such a
supplementary scheme. What his gifts for it may be I know
not, but I suppose he knows it is in requisition. However,
there need not be but one such if you felt your hand in for
it. His view happens to be also (as you suggest) about 160
sonnets. In reply to your query, I certainly think there
must be 20 living writers (male and female—my sister a
leader, I consider) who have written good sonnets such as
would afford an interesting and representative selection,
though assuredly not such as would all take the rank of
classics by any means. The number of sonnets now extant,
written by poets who did not exist as such a dozen years
ago, I believe to be almost infinite, and in sufficiently
numerous instances good, however derivative. One younger
poet among them, Philip Marston, has written many sonnets
which yield to few or none by any poet whatever; but he has
printed such a large number in the aggregate, and so unequal
one with the other, that the great ones are not to be found
by opening at random. “How are they (the poets) to be
approached?—” you innocently ask. Ye heavens! how does the
cat’s-meat-man approach Grimalkin?—and what is that
relation in life when compared to the rapport established
between the living bard and the fellow-creature who is
disposed to cater to his caterwauling appetite for
publicity? However, to be serious, I must at least exonerate
the bard, I am sure, from any desire to appropriate an
“interest in the proceeds.” There are some, I feel certain,
to whom the collector might say with a wink, “What are you
going to stand?”
I do not myself think that a collection of sonnets inserted at intervals in an essay is a good form for the purpose. Such a book is from one chief point a book of instantaneous reference,—it would only, perhaps, be read through once in a lifetime. For this purpose a well-indexed current series is best, with any desirable essay prefixed and notes affixed.... I once conceived of a series, to be entitled,
THE ENGLISH CASTALY: A QUINTESSENCE: BEING A COLLECTION OF ALL THAT IS BEST IN ALL ENGLISH POETS, EXCEPTING WORKS OF GREAT LENGTH.
I still think this a good idea, but, of course, it would be an extensive undertaking.
Later on, he wrote:
I have thought of a title for your book. What think you of
this?
A SONNET SEQUENCE FROM ELDER TO MODERN WORK, WITH FIFTY HITHERTO UNPRINTED SONNETS BY LIVING WRITERS.
That would not be amiss. Tell me if you think of using the
title A Sonnet Sequence, as otherwise I might use it in
the House of Life.... What do you think of this
alternative title:
THE ENGLISH SONNET MUSE FROM ELIZABETH’S REIGN TO VICTORIA’S.