Unthinkable Wings

Who is Sarah Williams? I've never heard of her.I thought it was Chesterton at first - though that rhythm is pure Kipling.

Mmmm, Kipling... That's my contribution decided!

From:

Ps Couldn't the second "smiles" be "wiles"?

From:

I've not heard of her other than that; the internet is being unhelpful. Wikipedia says merely: Sarah Williams (1837 – 1868) was an American poet, the author of "The Old Astronomer to His Pupil".

A segment of her poem is used in the introduction to Ian Rankin's novel Set in Darkness.

Though I suspect the reference to her nationality is inaccurate, as the Oxford DNB refers to a British poet of the same name and dates, who lived in Kentish Town, wrote poetry, some of it religious, who the ODNB finds somewhat reminiscent of Browning, though without mentioning the titles of any poems. I must see if I can dig anything else up.

From:

I think that's a very plausible conjecture; I've only encountered the poem floating round the internet, so it's quite possible that the text is corrupt.

From:

angevin2.livejournal.com

What for us the Goddess Pleasure with her meretricious smiles!

WE R SRS SCHOLARZ. FUN? DO NOT WANT.

...okay, yeah, it's a neat poem. Especially the last couplet. I am dubious about that particular verse though. ;)

From:

The second Sarah does sound a more likely candidate. And if the text is corrupt, that might also explain "honor".

From:

snorkackcatcher

Wow. That is indeed a fine poem and a truly excellent last two lines.

From:

sacred-sarcasm.livejournal.com

Why is pleasure suddenly a goddess, as well - what's wrong with good ol' Bacchus and friends?

From:

I think it's more WE R SRS SCHOLARS, NO1 LETS UZ HVE FUN WOE SO WE R FUN? DO NOT WANT subtextually, but yeah....

(As you can tell, I'm not all that fluent in lolcat...)

From:

Glad you enjoyed it!

From:

rivrea.livejournal.com

This is one of my favourites, too!

From:

The American Sarah Williams (if she existed) doesn't make it into the American National Biography, suggesting that she is indeed a Wikifantasy.

edited to add... but this site (http://www.quoteland.com/author.asp?AUTHOR_ID=1777) gives as a source an anthology of Best Loved Poems of the American People from 1936. The of is ambiguous, but perhaps we are talking about a more obscure American Sarah Williams, to whom the Wikipedian responsible has attributed the dates of the British one?

and again The mystery deepens, or goes down under - see the Wikipedia discussion page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sarah_Williams).

From:

Ok, that is mysterious. On reconsideration of the ODNB article, I don't think it's likely to be the same woman after all: they write

In the early 1850s Sarah Williams attended Queen's College, Harley Street, London, where her literary talent was recognized and fostered by the subsequent principal, Edward Hayes Plumptre (1821–1891), a man renowned for his encouragement of women's education. Illness curtailed this phase of her education. An introduction to Alexander Strahan (1833–1918), the evangelical publisher, obtained for her the entrée to Good Words, the Sunday Magazine, and The Argosy, to which she contributed a series of humorous sketches, ‘The Foozy Papers’, and poems. A posthumously published collection of poetry, Twilight Hours (1868), is remarkable for the wide scope of lyric forms and genres, ranging from children's verse, religious, and pastoral to a lovers' correspondence in verse, ‘Sospiri volate’. Her interest in the speaking voice is reminiscent of the Brownings, and the timbre sometimes more akin to Christina Rossetti's, but a distinctive voice emerges. An attentive ear for dialogue is also the distinguishing feature of her prose. Her only complete novel, The Prima Donna, the Gothic plot of which she had first used for a narrative poem, was posthumously published in 1884. Half of all her earnings were devoted to charities for the sick and the poor., and apparently she sometimes used the pen name Sadie. That could well be the source of the date confusion, though, but where the Australians come into it is anyone's guess.

I would have thought that the poem sounds more like the work of a contemporary of Browning's (it's the same metre as 'A Tocatta of Gallupi's', which is a relatively unusual one, and the voice and theme reminds me of Browning in particular and Victorian verse in general... but then, there's such a thing as pastiche.)

From:

It's good, whoever actually wrote it (see controversy above)

I like the icon, too - "Persuasion", isn't it? Appropriate, as the poem sounds like the sort of thing Ashe would have written...

From:

Regretfully, I don't know Browning, so can't comment on the style. I've ordered up Sarah Williams's collected verse, 1872 'enlarged' edition, to the Upper Reading Room, and should be able to see it at some point in the next few days. While looking for an online edition on Google Books, I did come across a 'snippet' from a later Victorian collected verse which included some Williams poems, though not 'The Old Astronomer to his Pupil'.

It's definitely pre-1936, and a date for first publication of 'The Old Astronomer...' is given on another anthology site as 1868, so it still could be by the ODNB Williams.

From:

rivrea.livejournal.com

It's good, whoever actually wrote it (see controversy above).

I've seen the comments: Once again, Livejournal is proving to be surprisingly educational.

I like the icon, too - "Persuasion", isn't it?

Err, I think you are referring to "Possession". Unless Byatt wrote an Austen pastiche I've never heard of. ;)

Appropriate, as the poem sounds like the sort of thing Ashe would have written...

If Ashe had written it, it'd probably be in blankverse, and full of obscure mythological references!

From:

Reporting live from the Upper Reading Room of the Bodleian, where I have in front of me the third edition of Twilight Hours, a legacy of verse, by Sarah Williams ('Sadie'), published in London by Strahan and Co. in 1872. I can report that on pages 68-71 is a poem called 'The Old Astronomer' - the same as has gained currency on the net under the title 'The Old Astronomer to His Pupil'. Goodbye, American Sarah Williams. Wikipedia will be amended shortly...

There are a further six stanzas, as follows:

What, my boy, you are not weeping? You should save your eyes for sight;
You will need them, mine observer, yet for many another night.
I leave none but you, my pupil, unto whom my plans are known.
You "have none but me," you murmur, and I "leave you quite alone"?

Well then, kiss me, - since my mother left her blessing on my brow,
There has been a something wanting in my nature until now;
I can dimly comprehend it, - that I might have been more kind,
Might have cherished you more wisely, as the one I leave behind.

I "have never failed in kindness"? No, we lived too high for strife,-
Calmest coldness was the error which has crept into our life;
But your spirit is untainted, I can dedicate you still
To the service of our science: you will further it? you will!

There are certain calculations I should like to make with you,
To be sure that your deductions will be logical and true;
And remember, "Patience, Patience," is the watchword of a sage,
Not to-day nor yet to-morrow can complete a perfect age.

I have sown, like Tycho Brahé, that a greater man may reap;
But if none should do my reaping, 'twill disturb me in my sleep.
So be careful and be faithful, though, like me, you leave no name;
See, my boy, that nothing turn you to the mere pursuit of fame.

I must say Good-bye, my pupil, for I cannot longer speak;
Draw the curtain back for Venus, ere my vision grows too weak:
It is strange the pearly planet should look red as fiery Mars,-
God will mercifully guide me on my way amongst the stars.

The preface to the book contains some examples of her correspondence. I wonder whether you might be able to answer this question:

"Apropos to nothing, Why is it that the Scotch say, 'Puir body,' and the English, 'Poor soul?' Do the Scotch think the soul never needs pity; or do they turn it over to their minsiters, as they would their clothes to a tailor?"

I liked this one too, reacting to Gladstone's defeat at Oxford University at the 1865 election:

"Is it not a shame for Gladstone to have been used so, set up as a brilliant mark for the daws to peck at? Let them peck! they are but daws after all; and the eagle wounded, is an eagle still. Only, this our England has not progressed so rapidly of late years, that we can contentedly see her drawn back because the leader is too much of a Pegasus. Well, happily, I have no business with politics. There is a certain sense of snugness in absolute insignificance. Also, it is going to rain, and I am always good when it rains. There is such a curious lullaby in the sweet pure rush of water, cleansing away foulness and dust, like a heavenly air blowing through our error and strife."

Her editor, her former tutor at Queen's College, Harley Street, E.A. Plumptre, reports that her inner life was in her own words influenced by "pious stragglers from the Church" but he did not think her 'imbued in any degree with the antagonism of Nonconformity, nor even with its characteristic theology'.

From:

To be pedantic the version in the 1872 edition ends both the 'smiles' and 'wiles' lines with question marks, and there are other minor differences of punctuation as well.

From:

Wow - well done you, and thanks so much for posting it. Plumptre was an Anglo-Catholic, wasn't he? And a hymnwriter, if I'm not getting them mixed up (though the jibe at Methodism sounds like a Spike being snotty).

I can see why only part of the poem gets transmitted - it's not that the rest of the poem is actually bad, but it introduces a new element (though not an inconsistent one), and above all, the ending of the poem as it's usually cited is much stronger and more memorable.

On the 'puir body': I think 'body', or as it's sometimes pronounced, 'buddy' means 'individual, person' rather than the corporeal element of the body-soul dyad (how's that for pretentiousness?). One might also say, 'she's a nice wee buddie', without implying any degree of admiration for them physically. Indeed 'she's a nice wee buddie' implies a little old lady; there's a slight edge of benevolent condescension.

I'm now wondering if the American 'buddy' is related to this at all. Wouldn't be impossible...

From:

Um, yes, Possession. I keep getting the titles mixed up. And you're probably right about Ashe, though he did write a poem about a Dutch scientist, didn't he? But you're right abut the metre.

On the educational nature of LJ: the estimable

parrot_knight has just solved the mystery: the poem is by the British author, and had a number of additional verses.

From:

Unsurprising - punctuation is usually the first thing to get corrupted. Though I'm surprised by the 'smiles/ wiles' corruption, as usually rhyme words are safe. On the other hand, the (conjectured) lectio dificillis did turn out to be correct, so old fashioned (unfashionable) Lachmannian principles of criticism are in this case vindicated...

From:

OK, the OED gives for Body:
13. A human being of either sex, an individual. Formerly, as still dialectally, and in the combinations ANY-, EVERY-, NO-, SOME-BODY, etc., exactly equivalent to the current ‘person’; but now only as a term of familiarity, with a tinge of compassion, and generally with adjectives implying this.
1297 R. GLOUC. 489 The beste bodi of the world in bendes was ibrout. c1340 Cursor M. 3360 (Fairf.) A better body drank neyuer wine. 1377 LANGL. P. Pl. B. x. 258 Ac blame ow neuere body and ow be blame-worthy. 1475 CAXTON Jason 90 Euery noble body ought soner chese deth thene to do..thing that sholde be ayenst their honour. 1535 COVERDALE Ps. xiii[i]. 1 The foolish bodyes saye in their hertes: Tush, there is no God. 1539 Bury Wills 137, I will that my executors gyve..in breade to iiij poore bodies jd. 1598 SHAKES. Merry W. I. iv. 105 'Tis a great charge to come vnder one bodies hand. 1653 WALTON Angler 56 It shall be given away to some poor body. 1693 LOCKE Educ. §143. iv, One angry body discomposes the whole Company. 1771 SMOLLETT Humph. Cl. (1815) 201 The countess was a good sort of a body. 1777 SHERIDAN Trip Scarb. III. iv. Wks. 505 What do you din a body's ears for? 1833 H. MARTINEAU Loom and Lugg. I. ii. 17 His wife was a more tidy body.

Curiously, for 'buddy', it reckons it's connected to 'booty' as someone you share spoils with... I am not entirely convinced, but I suppose odder things have happened.

From:

overconvergent.livejournal.com

A quick search reveals that this poem is quoted in various places; two of the more unexpected are "Introduction to Continuous and Digital Control Systems" by Roberto Saucedo and Earl E. Schiring, and "Reports and papers of the architectural and archaeological societies of the counties of Lincoln and Northampton" (!)

From:

overconvergent.livejournal.com

To quote A. E. Housman, "a greater than Lachmann is here".

From:

That's brilliant!

And very high praise from Houseman, who was a total Lachmann fanboy.

From:

I'm not convinced by OED either. 'Booty' to 'Buddy' seems a bit of a stretch; and your explanation acknowledges the anecotal influence of the Scots-Irish on American English.

From:

I hadn't heard of Lachmann before this evening, I confess, but after a little reading online see what you mean about the relevance of his critical methods. Of course, it may be that the fuller version of the title appears in the 1868 edition, or in the manuscript (if it exists); the anthologist who included the poem in the 1930s volume mentioned earlier must have had a source too, and that might be traceable. So I can see a stemma emerging.

I appreciate why Lachmannian principles might be criticised, but (very much a novice here) they at least impose a method on the 'art' of textual criticism which provides the scholar with a framework by which they can reappraise their work as new discoveries are made.

From: