Document Selection
Transforming Robert Tannahill is a comprehensive edition of all of Tannahill’s work. Because there was no definitive Tannahill edition published in his lifetime, and many of Tannahill’s poems and songs were not included in his sole published collection, this requires the use of multiple sources and ultimately produces an eclectic text. However, the primary copy text for Transforming Robert Tannahill is the original 1807 edition of Tannahill’s The Soldier’s Return; A Scottish Interlude in Two Acts: With Other Poems and Songs, Chiefly in the Scottish Dialect. The specific copy of The Soldier’s Return … employed in the text transcription is Shelfmark Ry.III.f.19 in the National Library of Scotland Special Collections. PDFs were obtained directly from the document by the NLS and turned into .jpg images by me for use alongside the edited text within the project. This work forms the core of the website, and will be maintained as a separate edition even as additional poems and songs are added.
I originally planned to use holograph manuscripts of Tannahill’s poems as the copy text for the edition. My rationale for this choice is that Tannahill was ultimately “ill-pleased with the arrangement of the Poems as they stand at present” (Ferguson 393). He began working on a second, revised edition of his poems that adhered more closely to his artistic vision just months after The Soldier’s Return … was published. This second edition is lost to us, as is all feasible hope of reconstructing the text. The edition was rejected by the Edinburgh publisher Archibald Constable despite Tannahill’s existing subscriber list (Semple xxxiv). A distraught Tannahill burned his papers and much of his correspondence before committing suicide on May 17, 1810 (Donaldson).
Tannahill’s manuscript copies of his poems, often contained in correspondence, are a possible choice for copy text because they are genealogically first in composition. W.W. Greg ignores the case of holographs because he treated primarily Renaissance-era texts, where exceptionally few holographs exist. His general line of thought in regards to choosing a copy-text was to give priority to the earliest text genealogically because that text will most closely reflect the author’s accidentals and substantives, unless another text of similar merit existed (Greg 29). Choosing the earliest manuscript text would thus fit Greg’s selection criteria in this situation.
However, Fredson Bowers examines the choice of copy-text in regards to modern authors, whose holograph manuscripts exist somewhat frequently. In “Greg’s ‘Rationale of Copy-Text’ Revisited,” Bowers writes that in most
I originally planned to use holograph manuscripts of Tannahill’s poems as the copy text for the edition. My rationale for this choice is that Tannahill was ultimately “ill-pleased with the arrangement of the Poems as they stand at present” (Ferguson 393). He began working on a second, revised edition of his poems that adhered more closely to his artistic vision just months after The Soldier’s Return … was published. This second edition is lost to us, as is all feasible hope of reconstructing the text. The edition was rejected by the Edinburgh publisher Archibald Constable despite Tannahill’s existing subscriber list (Semple xxxiv). A distraught Tannahill burned his papers and much of his correspondence before committing suicide on May 17, 1810 (Donaldson).
Tannahill’s manuscript copies of his poems, often contained in correspondence, are a possible choice for copy text because they are genealogically first in composition. W.W. Greg ignores the case of holographs because he treated primarily Renaissance-era texts, where exceptionally few holographs exist. His general line of thought in regards to choosing a copy-text was to give priority to the earliest text genealogically because that text will most closely reflect the author’s accidentals and substantives, unless another text of similar merit existed (Greg 29). Choosing the earliest manuscript text would thus fit Greg’s selection criteria in this situation.
However, Fredson Bowers examines the choice of copy-text in regards to modern authors, whose holograph manuscripts exist somewhat frequently. In “Greg’s ‘Rationale of Copy-Text’ Revisited,” Bowers writes that in most
circumstances, any preserved manuscript or early typescript material assumes an almost overriding importance unless it appears to the editor that the author has entered the transmissional process at a later stage than the preserved documents and in such a significant manner affecting the accidentals as to promote some perhaps final document like the first edition to superior overall authority in the choice of copy text. (Bowers 136-137)
Choosing the manuscript copies of Tannahill’s poems would then fit with Bowers’ view, unless Tannahill “entered the transmissional process at a later stage than the preserved documents” in order to “affect the accidentals.” This is often difficult to ascertain when looking at Tannahill’s work. Several of his poems that are available in manuscript predate their original publication, such as “Dirge. Let grief forever cloud the day ...” and (potentially – it is undated) “Song. Air – ‘Morneen I gaberlan.’ Blythe was the time when he fee'd wi' my father o.” These poems include not only different accidentals than the published versions, but also significantly different substantives – entire verses that the published versions do not include.
Tannahill’s writing process also makes choosing a copy text for his work difficult. In many cases, multiple versions of Tannahill’s poems that differ from the published versions circulated amongst his friends in manuscript prior to their publication. This was a part of Tannahill’s normal writing and revision process. In a letter to James King on 11 September 1807, Tannahill writes: “I send you the following, and [as] I intend doing something with them – I wish you to write me immediately, and if you discern any thing that might be amended be so kind as let me know as it is for that purpose I send them.” In another letter to John Crawford on 24 November 1809 he states that “Your rigidest criticism on the above will much favour me, as I wish to make it as well as I possibly can.” The purpose of much of Tannahill’s correspondence was truly to receive feedback and advice on his writing. Thus, Tannahill’s work was highly in flux, and he made alterations to his poems because of this correspondence with friends. Even when manuscript copies may seem more complete than the published versions of poems, the removal of verses is likely to be an authorial decision made during the writing process.
When looking at Tannahill’s published 1807 edition as a potential copy text, it is impossible to ignore Tannahill’s own reaction to the edition. Tannahill continued to seek publication for various pieces in 1807 and 1808, and began considering a “a small volume of songs printed with the music” in a letter to James King dated 10 September 1809. The following excerpt (1 March 1810) from a letter to Thomas Stewart, a bookseller, explains Tannahill’s desire and motivations behind republishing his work:
I feel a delicacy in sending you my MS. pieces, as some of them have been scrawled down in haste, and others are disfigured with interpolations; however, I think you will be able to form a pretty fair estimate of those I have past me by the volume which accompanies this. I have drawn a pencil across such parts in it as I would propose omitting in a second edition. The Interlude in its published state, I am quite ashamed of, and have almost entirely new-modelled it. I am confident of its being altered to considerable advantage. In the Poem department I have only about as many originals as would supply the room of those I mean to omit. To the songs I could add sixty or seventy, and the whole would comprise about 240 12mo. page3.
There are some little faults and incorrections throughout the whole of my volume, which could be amended on its second publication, and it is from an earnest wish to have one more respectable that makes me think of reprinting it. [...]
[...] P.S.—I am likewise ill-pleased with the arrangement of the Poems as they stand at present.
From the above, it is obvious that Tannahill was unhappy with his published edition. However, it seems that he does not mean to completely overhaul the text. He has drafted a largely modified version of the Interlude, which was panned during the first printing; intends to remove and replace some poems; and add many songs. He says little about changing the actual content of any existing poems or songs, only mentioning that there are some “little faults and incorrections” throughout the volume – accidental errors rather than substantives. This second edition of Tannahill’s work was not printed during his lifetime; the rejections of Stewart and another bookseller actually prompted Tannahill’s premature suicide. Before his death, Tannahill called for his friends to return any of his manuscript works in circulation. He also burned the manuscript that he sent to Stewart, so there is no hope of reconstructing this valuable document and using it as a copy text. Any other poems and songs that are now part of Tannahill’s collected works are recovered through periodical publication or manuscripts retained by his friends.
The 1810 edition of Tannahill’s work that appeared after his death was also considered as a copy text. However, this makes little sense as it was not edited and approved by Tannahill. Despite its weaknesses and Tannahill’s dissatisfaction with it, this edition remains the best copy-text available. Thus, after closely examining Tannahill’s writing process and weighing other possibilities, I have decided to use Tannahill’s published edition of The soldier’s return: a Scottish interlude in two acts, with other poems and songs, chiefly in the Scottish dialect as the primary copy text when available. While this text does have potential issues, it seems the best among the alternatives. When there are manuscript versions of any of these poems that appear later than the 1807 publication, these are deferred to instead as authorial revisions.
The 1874 edition, The Poems and Songs of Robert Tannahill, prepared by David Semple was originally considered for a source, but it proved to be unsuitable for use as a copy-text for several reasons. The most central is the long period of removal from Tannahill’s original publications. Nearly 70 years passed between the publication of The Soldier’s Return … and Semple’s edition. According to Greg, “in the case of printed books, and in the absence of revision in a later edition, it is normally the first edition alone that can claim authority, and this authority naturally extends to substantive readings and accidentals alike” (22). The revision Greg refers to is revision of the text by the original author, which Semple was not. Greg later explains that the earliest work comes “nearest to the author’s original in accidentals, [and] also (revision apart) most faithfully preserve[s] the correct readings where substantive variants are in question” (29).
In “The Rationale of Copy-Text,” W. W. Greg rejects all changes of spelling because “spelling is now recognized as an essential characteristic of an author, or at least of his time and locality” (21). Greg defines spelling, along with “punctuation, word-division, and the like, affecting mainly its [the text’s] presentation . . . [as] accidentals” (21) and also says that “in the matter of accidentals . . . we are bound (within reason) to follow” (22) them. I rejected Poems and Songs … as a copy-text for integrating changes of this order, in the accidentals of presentation, which ultimately corrupt the text.
Unauthorized changes were made by Semple in his edition. Semple altered the spelling of Craigie-lee to Craigielea (Semple 259) to better reflect its status as a place, but neglected to consider that Craigie-lee is an imagined name created by Tannahill that later became used colloquially, and thus does not need to conform to naming conventions. Semple also altered the titles of poems, such as when he changed “Stanzas on Invocation” to “Scotch Drink” to reflect the influence of Robert Burns on Tannahill (Ferguson 30).
Finally, Semple significantly altered Tannahill’s accidentals (spelling, capitalization, and punctuation). Some of Semple’s changes are legitimate emendations that fix apparent publisher errors, but others are unwarranted and likely aimed to make Tannahill’s work more accessible to Semple’s audience by providing readers with normative grammar. The first lines of “The Ambitious Mite” reflect Semple’s unnecessary changes:
1807 Edition:
WHEN hope persuades, and fame inspires us,
And pride with warm ambition fires us,
Let Reason instant sieze the bridle,
And wrest us frae the Passions’ guidal,
Else, like the Hero of our fable,
We’ll, aft be plung’d into a habble.
1874 (Semple) Edition:
WHEN Hope persuades, and Fame inspires us,
And Pride with warm ambition fires us,
Let Reason instant seize the bridle,
And wrest us frae the Passion’s guidal;
Else, like the hero of our fable,
We’ll aft be plung’d into a habble.
Semple’s altered capitalization does little to improve the poem. However, his emendation of: We’ll * We’ll, improves the reader’s comprehension of the line by removing the comma and corrects a likely publisher’s error. I adopt Semple’s emendation for this reason, but reject the capitalization changes because there is not significant justification to emend.
The original iteration of Transforming Robert Tannahill focused primarily on the nature imagery in Tannahill’s poems and songs in order to reduce the scope of the venture to a reasonable amount for a single-term venture. Because of this criteria, only 25 pieces were selected for inclusion. The current iteration of the project focuses on completeness. It thus includes all of the works in The Soldier’s Return ..., and the editor aims to add all of Tannahill’s other poems and songs in the near future. The poems are currently arranged in the order that they were published in The Soldier’s Return. The writing section will eventually be split into two separate sections, one for The Soldier’s Return as arranged at present and one for Tannahill’s collected works arranged in alphabetical order.
Selecting the copy texts for Tannahill's letters was much simpler in comparison to selecting copy texts for his creative work. The original, unaltered, holograph manuscripts of the letters are the only reasonable copy text to use in any circumstance when they are legible. I was able to view much of Tannahill's correspondence in holograph at the University of Glasgow library's special collections department. However, some of the texts are not recoverable in their holograph form. Semple's 1876 edition is used as copy text in these instances because of his completeness of record and better attention to detail in regards to Tannahill's correspondence than any of his predecessors. I am privileged to have access to Glasgow's MS Robertson in this matter; Semple did not know of this collection, and complained of being hampered in his pursuit of tracking down all of Tannahill's letters. He was forced to resort to excerpts from previous editors rather than using the holograph letters themselves. Semple gives the provenance of letters when he is able, but this information is of little use to modern editors because of the century and a half between his publication and today.
The 1810 edition of Tannahill’s work that appeared after his death was also considered as a copy text. However, this makes little sense as it was not edited and approved by Tannahill. Despite its weaknesses and Tannahill’s dissatisfaction with it, this edition remains the best copy-text available. Thus, after closely examining Tannahill’s writing process and weighing other possibilities, I have decided to use Tannahill’s published edition of The soldier’s return: a Scottish interlude in two acts, with other poems and songs, chiefly in the Scottish dialect as the primary copy text when available. While this text does have potential issues, it seems the best among the alternatives. When there are manuscript versions of any of these poems that appear later than the 1807 publication, these are deferred to instead as authorial revisions.
The 1874 edition, The Poems and Songs of Robert Tannahill, prepared by David Semple was originally considered for a source, but it proved to be unsuitable for use as a copy-text for several reasons. The most central is the long period of removal from Tannahill’s original publications. Nearly 70 years passed between the publication of The Soldier’s Return … and Semple’s edition. According to Greg, “in the case of printed books, and in the absence of revision in a later edition, it is normally the first edition alone that can claim authority, and this authority naturally extends to substantive readings and accidentals alike” (22). The revision Greg refers to is revision of the text by the original author, which Semple was not. Greg later explains that the earliest work comes “nearest to the author’s original in accidentals, [and] also (revision apart) most faithfully preserve[s] the correct readings where substantive variants are in question” (29).
In “The Rationale of Copy-Text,” W. W. Greg rejects all changes of spelling because “spelling is now recognized as an essential characteristic of an author, or at least of his time and locality” (21). Greg defines spelling, along with “punctuation, word-division, and the like, affecting mainly its [the text’s] presentation . . . [as] accidentals” (21) and also says that “in the matter of accidentals . . . we are bound (within reason) to follow” (22) them. I rejected Poems and Songs … as a copy-text for integrating changes of this order, in the accidentals of presentation, which ultimately corrupt the text.
Unauthorized changes were made by Semple in his edition. Semple altered the spelling of Craigie-lee to Craigielea (Semple 259) to better reflect its status as a place, but neglected to consider that Craigie-lee is an imagined name created by Tannahill that later became used colloquially, and thus does not need to conform to naming conventions. Semple also altered the titles of poems, such as when he changed “Stanzas on Invocation” to “Scotch Drink” to reflect the influence of Robert Burns on Tannahill (Ferguson 30).
Finally, Semple significantly altered Tannahill’s accidentals (spelling, capitalization, and punctuation). Some of Semple’s changes are legitimate emendations that fix apparent publisher errors, but others are unwarranted and likely aimed to make Tannahill’s work more accessible to Semple’s audience by providing readers with normative grammar. The first lines of “The Ambitious Mite” reflect Semple’s unnecessary changes:
1807 Edition:
WHEN hope persuades, and fame inspires us,
And pride with warm ambition fires us,
Let Reason instant sieze the bridle,
And wrest us frae the Passions’ guidal,
Else, like the Hero of our fable,
We’ll, aft be plung’d into a habble.
1874 (Semple) Edition:
WHEN Hope persuades, and Fame inspires us,
And Pride with warm ambition fires us,
Let Reason instant seize the bridle,
And wrest us frae the Passion’s guidal;
Else, like the hero of our fable,
We’ll aft be plung’d into a habble.
Semple’s altered capitalization does little to improve the poem. However, his emendation of: We’ll * We’ll, improves the reader’s comprehension of the line by removing the comma and corrects a likely publisher’s error. I adopt Semple’s emendation for this reason, but reject the capitalization changes because there is not significant justification to emend.
The original iteration of Transforming Robert Tannahill focused primarily on the nature imagery in Tannahill’s poems and songs in order to reduce the scope of the venture to a reasonable amount for a single-term venture. Because of this criteria, only 25 pieces were selected for inclusion. The current iteration of the project focuses on completeness. It thus includes all of the works in The Soldier’s Return ..., and the editor aims to add all of Tannahill’s other poems and songs in the near future. The poems are currently arranged in the order that they were published in The Soldier’s Return. The writing section will eventually be split into two separate sections, one for The Soldier’s Return as arranged at present and one for Tannahill’s collected works arranged in alphabetical order.
Selecting the copy texts for Tannahill's letters was much simpler in comparison to selecting copy texts for his creative work. The original, unaltered, holograph manuscripts of the letters are the only reasonable copy text to use in any circumstance when they are legible. I was able to view much of Tannahill's correspondence in holograph at the University of Glasgow library's special collections department. However, some of the texts are not recoverable in their holograph form. Semple's 1876 edition is used as copy text in these instances because of his completeness of record and better attention to detail in regards to Tannahill's correspondence than any of his predecessors. I am privileged to have access to Glasgow's MS Robertson in this matter; Semple did not know of this collection, and complained of being hampered in his pursuit of tracking down all of Tannahill's letters. He was forced to resort to excerpts from previous editors rather than using the holograph letters themselves. Semple gives the provenance of letters when he is able, but this information is of little use to modern editors because of the century and a half between his publication and today.