This article has been accepted for publication in Notes & Queries, by Oxford University Press. Marland, R. & Leonard, S. M. (in press) Oscar Wilde’s rehearsal copy of Vera; or, The Nihilists, Notes & Queries, doi:10.1093/notesj/gjae143
Wilde, photographed by Napoleon Sarony during the week of Vera rehearsals. Image: oscarwildeinamerica.org
In 1882, Oscar Wilde commissioned a privately printed edition of the revised text of his first play, Vera; or, The Nihilists (hereafter 1882).Oscar Wilde, Vera; or, The Nihilists (New York, 1882). He further revised the play for Marie Prescott’s production in New York in August 1883. In 1902, Leonard Smithers, the publisher of Wilde’s post-prison works, brought out an unauthorised edition of the play (hereafter 1902),Oscar Wilde, Vera; or, The Nihilists (n.p., 1902). which he described as ‘published from the author’s own copy, showing his corrections of and additions to the original text’. Stuart Mason, Wilde’s bibliographer, believed that the copy used by Smithers was ‘probably’ the copy sold at Sotheby’s in 1907, though he was unable to verify this because, when he was writing in 1914, the copy was in private hands.Stuart Mason, The Bibliography of Oscar Wilde (London, 1914), 551–2. In 2004, the Morgan Library & Museum, New York, acquired the copy (hereafter 1882M).PML 129596. The provenance of the copy is documented in Wolfgang Maier-Sigrist, ‘Vera; or, The Nihilists’, Oscar Wilde: An Annotated Bibliography of Manuscripts and their Provenances (2022) wilde-manuscripts.org
The only two published critical editions of Vera, edited by Frances Miriam Reed (1989) and Josephine Guy (2021), overlook 1882M and collate with 1882 the emendations listed by Smithers in 1902.Josephine M. Guy (ed.), The Complete Works of Oscar Wilde, Vol. 11: Plays, Vol. 4: Vera; or The Nihilist and Lady Windermere’s Fan (Oxford, 2021); Miriam Reed (ed.), Oscar Wilde’s Vera; or, The Nihilist, (Lewiston, Queenston, Lampeter, 1989). As noted in Rob Marland, ‘Unnoted textual witnesses in Oscar Wilde’s Vera’, N&Q, lxviii (2021), 448–53, Guy also overlooks other textual witnesses. Smithers is the only editor of Vera to have consulted 1882M. Guy, in the introduction to her edition, acknowledges that relying on 1902 raises questions of authority and that some of Smithers’s descriptions of the emendations are ambiguous.Guy (2021), 93–7. Guy refers to this witness as 1882S. We refer to it as 1902 because it is not a copy of 1882.
We have consulted 1882M and, after comparing it with 1902, can confirm that it was Smithers’s source. In this note, we attempt to resolve Guy’s questions about 1902/1882M, and describe emendations to 1882M that are recorded ambiguously or inaccurately – or not recorded at all – in 1902.With thanks to Merlin Holland for granting permission to quote from hitherto unpublished manuscript material.
Guy suggests that Smithers is unlikely to have fabricated the emendations he lists in 1902; not having seen Smithers’s source, she is unable to reject the idea definitively.Guy (2021), 94. She also notes that Smithers describes one emendation being made in ‘violet pencil’ and that he records deletions using different terms. Because of this ambiguity, she considers whether the emendations listed by Smithers were made by more than one person, perhaps including Prescott.Guy (2021), 95. Although Smithers records that only one emendation is in violet pencil, a substantial number of emendations are in violet pencil. Many others are in grey pencil, and some are in black ink. We agree with Guy that it can be near impossible to attribute simple strokes or ‘X’s to specific hands, but the emendations to 1882M include variants in Wilde’s holograph in all three media. Marks made in 1882M using different media often overlap. In such cases, close inspection reveals that marks in grey pencil tend to be over marks in black ink, which tend to be over marks in violet pencil.We shone a torch over the marks to see the shine from the grey graphite pencil. The violet pencil and black ink did not shine. We cannot rule out the possibility that there were more than three phases of editing or that different instruments were taken up during the same phase. But there is no evidence that any of the marks in 1882M were made by anyone other than Wilde, and we conclude that all of the emendations therein have his authority.
Guy asks whether the different terms used by Smithers to record deletions are descriptive of how those deletions were marked in the copy he consulted.Guy (2021), 95. Smithers uses the following terms: ‘scored through’ (×33), ‘scored out’ (×14), ‘cut out’ (×8), ‘crossed out’ (×2), and ‘delete’ (×2). He also instructs readers to ‘alter’ certain words, in which cases he only mentions the variant and not how the original words have been marked for deletion. Comparing Smithers’s terms with 1882M suggests that Smithers is not using the terms to describe different methods of deletion. Rather, he appears to get into the habit of using one term to describe any type of deletion, and then changes to another term for no clear reason. The deletions in 1882M are generally marked with horizontal strokes. Sometimes multi-line passages are marked for deletion with a single large cross or with wavy strokes that vary in neatness. This is consistent with how Wilde marked deletions in typescripts of his later plays.See e.g. author-annotated typescripts of ‘A Good Woman’ [Lady Windermere’s Fan] (The University of Texas at Austin, Harry Ransom Center, MS-4515) and An Ideal Husband (Harvard University, Houghton Library, TSM 261).
Marie Prescott in Czeka, around the time she appeared in Vera. Image: NYPL
Guy posits that the emendations listed in 1902 may have been made later than those in other post-1882 textual witnesses, ‘possibly when Wilde returned to New York in early August [1883] … to attend rehearsals’.Guy (2021), 96–7. Several emendations appear to relate to the play in performance. For example, in Act III Smithers records that Wilde has inserted the words ‘no laugh’ (Guy 146.265), which Guy interprets as Wilde’s effort to ensure that the actors maintained a serious tone. That 1882M was a rehearsal copy is also suggested by the untidiness of Wilde’s emendations.This was recognised by Sotheby’s when they sold the copy in 1990 (Sotheby’s catalogue, ‘English Literature and History’, London, 13 December 1990, lot 151). Many variants are inscribed at an angle and in a loose hand, and strikethroughs and underlines are often uneven. Wilde certainly emended the play during rehearsals: journalists saw him on stage, ‘manuscript’ in hand, discussing edits with Prescott.‘World of Amusement’, New York Dispatch (New York, NY), 19 Aug. 1883, 4. He attended rehearsals every day in the week before opening night,‘Personal’, The New York Mirror (New York, NY), 18 August 1883, 6. and made cuts to the play after opening night.‘Amusements’, The World (New York, NY), 23 August 1883, 5; ‘Theatrical World’, Truth (New York, NY), 26 August 1883, 5. The play was withdrawn after a week. Wilde is very likely to have annotated 1882M during this two-week period.
In attempting to resolve the remaining ambiguities identified by Guy we refer to Smithers’s notes by number (he numbers notes sequentially within acts, so here I.1 refers to Act I, note 1), keying notes to page and line numbers in Guy’s edition.
I.30 records that ‘Do not dare’ (124.287–8) is ‘scored through’. Guy surmises that Smithers errs in only marking these three words for deletion, because Wilde seems likelier to have intended to delete the entire sentence (‘Do not dare lay a hand upon him!’) and avoid repetition with Vera’s next command (‘Dare to lay a finger on him, and I leave you all to yourselves’, 124.290). But in 1882M the markings are clear: the three words specified by Smithers are doubly struck through. The emended sentence might be read not as an imperative but as an exclamation of incredulity.
I.33 records that ‘Who is there?’ is inserted after the stage direction ‘(Tramp…door.)’ (125.310). Guy notes that 1902 is unclear about who is to deliver the line, and presumes it was intended for the President. In 1882M the words are written in grey pencil in the outer margin of page 23; there is no indication of the speaker. Wilde often drafted dialogue without immediately assigning it to specific characters.See e.g. Guy (2021), 203. A question mark is pencilled beneath the inserted line and seems unlikely to have been intended to follow it, as Smithers assumed. Instead it seems to refer to ‘Michael…chance’ (125.316–17), material that Smithers incorrectly states is ‘scored through’ (I.34) when in fact it is underlined. The underlining and question mark may signify that Wilde considered changing or deleting the material.
II.10 records that ‘are’ (131.135) is underlined, but in his text Smithers does not italicise the word. Guy presumes that Smithers is in error. The word is underlined in grey pencil on page 30 of 1882M. Because the word is already italicised in 1882, the underlining may indicate that Wilde felt that Lewis Morrison, the actor who played Alexis, did not sufficiently emphasise the word.
II.15 records that ‘Am I Emperor for’ (135.270) is ‘scored through’. Guy notes that this renders the sentence nonsensical; she presumes that Smithers is in error. But Smithers records the emendation accurately.
III.5 records that ‘We also meet daily for revenge’ (141.36) is ‘scored through’. Smithers marks emendations that span several words by inserting the same superscript number before and after the words. He does so here but, as Guy notes, on page 49 of 1902 there is another superscript ‘5’ two lines earlier, after another instance of ‘revenge’ (141.35). She hypothesises that this is ‘a simple printing error’. She is correct: there are no marks in 1882M relating to the earlier instance of ‘revenge’.
On the interleaf facing page 46 of 1882M, opposite ‘but he ye seek to kill’ (145.203), Wilde has written in grey pencil ‘alexis – he ye seek to kill –’. Smithers only records that ‘Alexis’ should be inserted after ‘but’. Guy resolves the apparently ungrammatical result by omitting ‘he’. But Wilde’s intention appears to have been to insert ‘Alexis’ and a pause after ‘but’. In 1882M ‘he’ is underlined in grey pencil. This may have been an earlier emendation – an attempt to emphasise that the pronoun refers to Alexis – that was superseded by the addition of Alexis’s name.
Although Smithers’s notes in 1902 are sometimes ambiguous, the overall impression they give is that Wilde’s emendations in 1882M were relatively straightforward. In reality, Wilde’s emendations are much more complex than Smithers permits his readers to know. Smithers omits many emendations to 1882M that are unfinished or difficult to interpret. As we have noted, Smithers does mention that one emendation is in violet pencil but he does not record the instruments used to make other emendations and this choice further obscures the complexity of the emendations. For example, Smithers records that ‘Greedy…rapine’ (145.214–15) is ‘cut out’ (III.21). But Wilde has done more than simply ‘cut out’ this passage. It is highlighted with a horizontally flipped question mark in black ink in the outer margin (Wilde is known to have inscribed such question marks on other texts).See e.g. his copy of the Bacchae of Euripides (British Library, Eccles 468) and the typescript of ‘A Good Woman’. ‘[R]apine’ is underlined in grey pencil, probably to identify it as a problematic word rather than to indicate emphasis (as Guy notes, several emendations in 1902/1882M tone down explicit references to violence).Guy (2021), 95–6, 100. These marks likely preceded the thorough deletion of the text with a combination of horizontal strokes in purple pencil and wavy lines in black ink. The ink appears to be over the pencil. This pattern of marks implies that Wilde returned to the passage on multiple occasions, that after some initial indecision he deleted the material, and that he later confirmed this deletion. There are other similar examples throughout the copy.
Detailing all of Wilde’s emendations to 1882M in their full complexity is beyond the scope of this note. We therefore restrict ourselves to listing instances where 1882M differs from the list of emendations in 1902, beginning with instances where Smithers’s notes are ambiguous or incorrect.
Lewis Morrison, who played Alexis in Vera. Image: NYPL
I.14 records that ‘bright boyish face’ (122.174) is underlined; in 1882M ‘face’ is not underlined and ‘bright’ is only partly underlined. I.18 records that ‘How fair he looks!’ (123.217) is scored out; Smithers does not note that ‘fair’ is underlined. Both of these phrases refer to the appearance of Alexis. The underlining is unlikely to signal emphasis but rather that Wilde contemplated changing the words (he also replaced the first word in the phrase ‘bright young face’ with ‘strong’; 123.226–7). He may have been concerned that the 1882 text did not accurately describe Morrison, who was thirty-nine and robustly featured. One reviewer of the first performance noted that the audience roared with laughter when Prescott exclaimed ‘How beautiful he is!’[?Stephen Ryder Fiske], ‘Spirit of the Stage’, The Spirit of the Times (New York, NY), 25 August 1883, 114. This line does not appear in any witness and is likely the reviewer’s misremembering of ‘How fair he looks!’ Perhaps, then, Wilde made these emendations after opening night.
II.12 records that ‘Czar. They…Siberia’ (133.199–202) is ‘scored through’. In 1882M the majority of this speech is marked with a square bracket in grey pencil in the outer margin. There is a mark over the second instance of ‘die’ (133.201) that may suggest that Wilde identified this reference to violence as problematic . ‘Send her to Siberia. She is’ (133.202) is underlined in grey pencil. None of Wilde’s marks could reasonably be construed as signifying deletion, and Smithers’s claim that Wilde ‘scored through’ the material is incorrect.
II.20 records that there is a stage direction – a pause – indicated after ‘grace of God’ (137.364). Guy inserts ‘(A pause.)’ here. On page 37 of 1882M there is a grey pencilled caret after ‘God’ and on the interleaf opposite there is a grey pencilled dash. Smithers may be correct in interpreting the dash as a pause, but the emendation is more ambiguous than he suggests.
III.20 records that ‘O God’ (145.209) is altered to ‘No! No!’ In 1882M the variant is ‘no no’.
III.26 records that the words ‘no laugh’ are inserted at ‘childless and alone’ (146.265). In 1882M, the words (twice underlined) are pencilled on the interleaf facing page 48 opposite a later point in the speech – at about ‘but you soon cured me of that’ (146.269). B. F. Turner, the actor who portrayed Michael in the first production, cannot conceivably have attempted a comedic reading of this line, but perhaps he laughed ironically and Wilde was displeased with the choice. Another possibility is that Ed Lamb, the low comedian who played Prince Paul, interrupted Turner by laughing. This would be consistent with reports that, on opening night, Lamb sought to wring laughs from even his serious lines.[Joe Howard], ‘Amusements’, The New York Herald (New York, NY), 21 August 1883, 10.
III.31 records that ‘This Czar…kiss!’ (148.330–3) is ‘scored out’. In 1882M, the mark deleting this material continues to the margin, and encompasses ‘(With more passion) O’ (148.333).
In the remainder of this note, we list the emendations in 1882M that are ignored by Smithers.
On the interleaf facing page 17, opposite the later part of Vera’s speech on martial law (‘The streets…traitor’, 120.113–15), Wilde has inscribed in grey pencil ‘Business of Michael’. There is no business specified in the text, so it must have developed during rehearsals. Wilde does not specify whether he approved or disapproved of the business.
On the interleaf facing page 19, opposite ‘I knew…not!’ (122.203), Wilde has inscribed in grey pencil ‘on my honour I’. He presumably intended this as an addition to Alexis’s line.
On the interleaf facing page 20, opposite ‘these dull Russian peasants’ (123.241), Wilde has inscribed in grey pencil ‘<I fear> | who bore us’ (we use ‘< >’ to record a deletion).
On the interleaf facing page 21, opposite ‘Place S. Isaac’ (124.273), Wilde has inscribed in grey pencil ‘S. Isaacs square’. This variant is consistent with Wilde’s replacement of French words with English elsewhere in the text.Guy (2021), 54, 72, 93, 95, 100, 103–5.
In the outer margin of page 22, beside ‘with your soft white hands, your curled hair, your pretty graces’ (124.283–4), Wilde has written ‘scented’ in grey pencil. He may have intended this as a variant for ‘curled’ (in his previous line Michael describes himself as ‘a bloodhound that never loses the scent’). Wilde repeatedly invoked perfume as a marker of sophistication and decadence.Catherine Maxwell, Scents and Sensibility: Perfume in Victorian Literary Culture (Oxford, 2017), 240–63. In an early manuscript of his poem ‘The Sphinx’ he wrote the line ‘Pour /oils of Libya\ odorous spikenard on his hair’ (we use ‘/ \’ to record an insertion), and in ‘The Soul of Man under Socialism’ he retold the story from the Gospels about a woman who pours perfumes on the hair of Christ.Bobby Fong and Karl Beckson (eds.), The Complete Works of Oscar Wilde, Vol. 1: Poems and Poems in Prose (Oxford, 2000), No. 93, commentary on line 127. Josephine Guy (ed.) The Complete Works of Oscar Wilde, Vol. 4: Criticism: Historical Criticism, Intentions, The Soul of Man (Oxford, 2007), 242.18–31. See also Wilde’s oral tale ‘The House of Judgement’ in Thomas Wright (ed.), Table Talk (London, 2000), 174–5.
Also in the outer margin of page 22, beside ‘the truth’ (124.296), a large ‘>’ has been drawn in grey pencil in the margin, pointing under these words. The words are followed by a small ‘+’, also in grey pencil. These symbols would seem to suggest that Wilde intended to insert material, but which material is unclear (there are no emendations on the facing interleaf).
At the head of page 23 Wilde has written in grey pencil ‘That is not the right knock’. If the words were used in the production, Wilde may have assigned them to Michael.
At the head of the interleaf facing page 26 Wilde has written in grey pencil ‘3.4’. The meaning of the number is obscure.
On the interleaf facing page 28, opposite ‘Prince. The maladie du siècle…once’ (130.98–100), Wilde has written and twice underlined in grey pencil ‘grammar’. Perhaps he wanted to check his French phrase or some other aspect of the line, or to correct Lamb’s reading of it.
On the interleaf facing page 29, opposite ‘He would stab his best friend for the sake of writing an epigram on his tombstone, or experiencing a new sensation’ (131.111–12), Wilde has written ‘or botanising on his grave’ in grey pencil. The original material is not struck out, but the material on the interleaf would seem to be a variant – ‘or experiencing a new sensation’ is marked for deletion in other textual witnesses. Wilde’s inspiration for the line may be Wordsworth’s ‘A Poet’s Epitaph’, in which a physician is characterised as ‘a fingering slave, | One that would peep and botanize | Upon his mother’s grave’.Ernest de Selincourt and Helen Darbishire (eds.), The Poetical Works of William Wordsworth, Vol. 4, 2nd ed. (Oxford, 1958), 66.18–20. Wilde ranked Wordsworth alongside Shelley, Keats, and Byron as one of the ‘four great poets of the early part of this [the nineteenth] century’ (‘Honors to an Aesthete’, The Times (Philadelphia, PA), 17 January 1882, 1, in Rob Marland (ed.) Oscar Wilde: The Complete Interviews (Jena, 2022), 81–3, 82).
On the interleaf facing page 29, opposite ‘Prince Paul. Yes, I know I’m the most hated man in Russia’ (131.118), Wilde has written ‘unpopular’ in grey pencil. This would seem to be a variant for ‘hated’, though that word is not struck through. Beneath this, opposite the later part of Prince Paul’s speech, Wilde has written ‘Every [?us]’ in grey pencil. This may be an unfinished variant on ‘every corner’ (131.121).
On the interleaf facing page 30, opposite ‘Believe…them’ (131.131–4), Wilde has written ‘serious’ in grey pencil. This is likely a note made during rehearsals in response to Lamb playing the line for laughs.
On the interleaf facing page 31, opposite a speech by the Czar lamenting that too few nihilists have been hanged (132.172–4), Wilde has roughly written in grey pencil ‘three nihilists hung what does’. The insertion point is marked by a grey pencilled caret before ‘I would to God’ (132.172). The words ‘what does’ suggest that Wilde may have considered writing ‘what does that matter?’ That phrase is spoken by Alexis later in Act II: ‘If I am to die for the people, I am ready; one Nihilist more or less in Russia, what does that matter?’ (138.396). Having one character repeat the words of another as a form of admonishment was a rhetorical trick that Wilde used elsewhere.E.g. ‘excellent virtue’, spoken by Prince Petrovich and Alexis (149.24–5, 151.90). See also An Ideal Husband, Act I, where Mrs Cheveley repeats Sir Robert Chiltern’s ‘Let us call things by their proper names’ (Oscar Wilde, An Ideal Husband (London, 1908), 38, 44), and The Importance of Being Earnest, where Jack Worthing repeats Lady Bracknell’s ‘form an alliance’ (Joseph Donohue (ed.), The Complete Works of Oscar Wilde, Vol. 10: Plays, Vol. 3: The Importance of Being Earnest; ‘A Wife’s Tragedy’ (fragment) (Oxford, 2019), 783.494–5, 842.241).
On page 37 a large bold ‘<’ is inscribed in the outer margin in grey pencil, possibly over a left-facing arrow, pointing at the line that ends ‘harvest?’ (137.355). The meaning is obscure.
On the interleaf facing page 38, opposite Prince Paul’s line ‘In that case you and I better learn how to swim’ (138.402–3), Wilde has written in grey pencil ‘seriously’. This is presumably a stage direction, prompted by Lamb playing the line for laughs.
On the interleaf facing page 43, opposite ‘gave me the password’ (142.96), Wilde has written in grey pencil ‘and me the address – he is sure of’. There is no clear insertion point for what appears to be an unfinished emendation.
On page 43 there is a vertical line and question mark in the outer margin highlighting ‘Mich. Hiding…Alexis! why’ (142.101–4). Both marks are in black ink. They presumably indicate that Wilde considered altering or deleting the discussion of the priest. On the facing interleaf Wilde has written in grey pencil ‘Every man has his price – but he was <most> /really quite\ expensive.’. Perhaps Wilde considered assigning this text to Michael as a reference to the priest, or he may be drafting an epigram for use elsewhere. Wilfrid Hugh Chesson, a former owner of 1882M, noted in his memoir of Wilde that Wilde adapted this ‘variant on an epigram attributed to Sir Robert Walpole’ for The Duchess of Padua.‘Why every man among them has his price, | Although, to do them justice, some of them | Are quite expensive.’ Joseph Donohue (ed.), The Complete Works of Oscar Wilde, Vol. 5: Plays, Vol. 1: The Duchess of Padua; Salomé: Drame en Un Acte; Salome: Tragedy in One Act (Oxford, 2013), 110.269–71. E. H. Mikhail (ed.), Oscar Wilde: Interviews and Recollections (London, 1979), II, 375. The epigram attributed to Walpole is ‘All those men have their price’.William Coxe (ed.), Memoirs of the Life and Administration of Sir Robert Walpole, Earl of Oxford (London, 1798), I, 797.
On the interleaf facing page 43, opposite ‘Prince Paul.…mon camarade’ (142.114), Wilde has written ‘The regicide’ in grey pencil. There is no insertion mark, but Wilde may have intended the words to be spoken by Prince Paul, to make it clearer to the audience that the shot referred to by Prince Paul is the one that killed the Czar.
In the outer margin of page 50, beside ‘Liberty, do…The end has come’ (148.339–41), Wilde has written and underlined ‘but’ in grey pencil. He may have intended for the word to precede ‘The end’.
On the interleaf facing page 53, opposite ‘what are…have we’ (150.60–1), Wilde has written in grey pencil ‘What [illeg. wd.]’. The illegible word may be ‘we’ or ‘are’. The material is probably an incomplete variant. Beneath this, Wilde has written in grey pencil ‘parliament in Russia is.’ The material is not directly opposite ‘Reforms in Russia’ (150.63) but is probably an incomplete variant on it.
On page 55 ‘Sire—Alexis’ (152.139) is underlined in grey pencil, presumably for emphasis.
The final printed page is missing. In its place is pasted a transcription on four pages in the hand of Chesson’s wife Nora.The attribution of the hand to Nora Chesson née Hopper (1871–1906) was first made when the copy was offered for sale in 1907 (Maier-Sigrist, ‘Vera; or, The Nihilists’). We have compared the pages with an autograph letter from Nora Hopper to W. B. Yeats (Yale University, Beinecke Rare Book and Manuscript Library, OSB MSS FILE, File 7599, 2036973) and judge the attribution to be sound. Smithers does not mention this, and the page may have been lost before or after he consulted the copy. That the page is missing means that there is no way of knowing if Wilde emended the text between ‘Czar. It is no nightingale’ (155.244) and the end of the play. Some reviews of the first performance note that the play ended somewhat differently than as scripted in 1882 or in surviving post-1882 witnesses.See Rob Marland, ‘Unnoted textual witnesses in Oscar Wilde’s Vera’, N&Q, lxviii (2021), 448–53.