Post by jenny2write on Sept 6, 2008 18:22:33 GMT -5
I'm posting here as well as on the LC Yahoo group. I wish it was possible to keep BOTH alive! everything seems rather dead right now. Anyway these are my thoughts on Wasp in a wig, and whether or not it is authentic.
Against its authenticity are, I believe, the following points.
PROVENANCE: It was put up for sale in Sotheby's NY anonymously in 1974 and the person who put it up is still anonymous. Therefore they have not been able to be questioned about its provenance. Sotheby's said that it was apparently bought at the sale of Carroll's personal effects in 1898. It does not appear in the catalogue of that 1898 sale, and the explanation is that it was sold together with a bundle of other papers and not listed separately. The item has not been forensically examined and no handwriting expert has been asked to look at the scanty notes jotted on the galley.
LITERARY. The quality of the writing is poor. Of course this is subjective, but most of the material in the Alice books is either quotable or else contains layers of meaning, puns, etc. and there is very little that is just purely nonsensical. This, by contrast, seems rather pointless and dull. Furthermore, there is something derivative in the style (this is very subjective - I know - but to me several of the words do not appear to be used in the right way and do not seem to have the right "ring")
FOR its authenticity are the following points: The handwriting does look quite similar to Carroll's but not too much so: i.e. it is right in some essential details such as spacing of letters, formation of letters etc. but is also written at an appropriate speed (as you can see by the patterns of the ink)so has not been laboriously crafted to look "correct". The piece is indeed rather bad but Tenniel had already said this, and Carroll may have removed it for just that reason - i.e. that it was substandard. He was certainly capable of writing just as bad and derivative stuff in Sylvie and Bruno but of course that was much later.
There are a few bits in the piece which may reveal some interest under proper examination - for instance, the spelling of the word "engulphed" instead of "engulfed" is quite interesting. I believe "engulphing" meant something like flunking your exams, although I haven't been able to check this.
Since the writing is both in violet and black there is nothing to say about that: both are possible.
So far I am inclining to the belief that the Wasp is NOT genuine but is a clever fake. What do others think?
Jenny
Read my Carroll blog! www.jabberwock.co.uk
Against its authenticity are, I believe, the following points.
PROVENANCE: It was put up for sale in Sotheby's NY anonymously in 1974 and the person who put it up is still anonymous. Therefore they have not been able to be questioned about its provenance. Sotheby's said that it was apparently bought at the sale of Carroll's personal effects in 1898. It does not appear in the catalogue of that 1898 sale, and the explanation is that it was sold together with a bundle of other papers and not listed separately. The item has not been forensically examined and no handwriting expert has been asked to look at the scanty notes jotted on the galley.
LITERARY. The quality of the writing is poor. Of course this is subjective, but most of the material in the Alice books is either quotable or else contains layers of meaning, puns, etc. and there is very little that is just purely nonsensical. This, by contrast, seems rather pointless and dull. Furthermore, there is something derivative in the style (this is very subjective - I know - but to me several of the words do not appear to be used in the right way and do not seem to have the right "ring")
FOR its authenticity are the following points: The handwriting does look quite similar to Carroll's but not too much so: i.e. it is right in some essential details such as spacing of letters, formation of letters etc. but is also written at an appropriate speed (as you can see by the patterns of the ink)so has not been laboriously crafted to look "correct". The piece is indeed rather bad but Tenniel had already said this, and Carroll may have removed it for just that reason - i.e. that it was substandard. He was certainly capable of writing just as bad and derivative stuff in Sylvie and Bruno but of course that was much later.
There are a few bits in the piece which may reveal some interest under proper examination - for instance, the spelling of the word "engulphed" instead of "engulfed" is quite interesting. I believe "engulphing" meant something like flunking your exams, although I haven't been able to check this.
Since the writing is both in violet and black there is nothing to say about that: both are possible.
So far I am inclining to the belief that the Wasp is NOT genuine but is a clever fake. What do others think?
Jenny
Read my Carroll blog! www.jabberwock.co.uk