Preface to the Revised Edition
My
publisher wishes me to say a few words about the genesis of the
work, a revised and enlarged edition of which he is
herewith laying
before the public. I therefore place on record as much as I can
remember on this head after a lapse of more than thirty years.
The first part of "Erewhon" written was an article headed "Darwin
among the Machines," and signed Cellarius. It was written in the
Upper Rangitata district of the Canterbury Province (as it then
was) of New Zealand, and appeared at Christchurch in the Press
Newspaper, June 13, 1863. A copy of this article is indexed under
my books in the British Museum catalogue. In passing, I may say
that the opening chapters of "Erewhon" were also drawn from the
Upper Rangitata district, with such modifications as I found
convenient.
A second article on the same subject as the one just referred to
appeared in the Press shortly after the first, but I have no copy.
It treated Machines from a different point of view, and was the
basis of pp. 270-274 of the present edition of "Erewhon." {1} This
view ultimately led me to the theory I put forward in "Life and
Habit," published in November 1877. I have put a bare outline of
this theory (which I believe to be quite sound) into the mouth of
an Erewhonian philosopher in Chapter XXVII. of this book.
In 1865 I rewrote and enlarged "Darwin among the Machines" for the
Reasoner, a paper published in London by Mr. G. J. Holyoake. It
appeared July 1, 1865, under the heading, "The Mechanical
Creation," and can be seen in the British Museum. I again rewrote
and enlarged it, till it assumed the form in which it appeared in
the first edition of "Erewhon."
The next part of "Erewhon" that I wrote was the "World of the
Unborn," a preliminary form of which was sent to Mr. Holyoake's
paper, but as I cannot find it among those copies of the Reasoner
that are in the British Museum, I conclude that it was not
accepted. I have, however, rather a strong fancy that it appeared
in some London paper of the same character as the Reasoner, not
very long after July 1, 1865, but I have no copy.
I also wrote about this time the substance of what ultimately
became the Musical Banks, and the trial of a man for being in a
consumption. These four detached papers were, I believe, all that
was written of "Erewhon" before 1870. Between 1865 and 1870 I
wrote hardly anything, being hopeful of attaining that success as a
painter which it has not been vouchsafed me to attain, but in the
autumn of 1870, just as I was beginning to get occasionally hung at
Royal Academy exhibitions, my friend, the late Sir F. N. (then Mr.)
Broome, suggested to me that I should add somewhat to the articles
I had already written, and string them together into a book. I was
rather fired by the idea, but as I only worked at the MS. on
Sundays it was some months before I had completed it.
I see from my second Preface that I took the book to Messrs.
Chapman & Hall May 1, 1871, and on their rejection of it, under the
advice of one who has attained the highest rank among living
writers, I let it sleep, till I took it to Mr. Trubner early in
1872. As regards its rejection by Messrs. Chapman & Hall, I
believe their reader advised them quite wisely. They told me he
reported that it was a philosophical work, little likely to be
popular with a large circle of readers. I hope that if I had been
their reader, and the book had been submitted to myself, I should
have advised them to the same effect.
"Erewhon" appeared with the last day or two of March 1872. I
attribute its unlooked-for success mainly to two early favourable
reviews--the first in the Pall Mall Gazette of April 12, and the
second in the Spectator of April 20. There was also another cause.
I was complaining once to a friend that though "Erewhon" had met
with such a warm reception, my subsequent books had been all of
them practically still-born. He said, "You forget one charm that
'Erewhon' had, but which none of your other books can have." I
asked what? and was answered, "The sound of a new voice, and of an
unknown voice."
The first edition of "Erewhon" sold in about three weeks; I had not
taken moulds, and as the demand was strong, it was set up again
immediately. I made a few unimportant alterations and additions,
and added a Preface, of which I cannot say that I am particularly
proud, but an inexperienced writer with a head somewhat turned by
unexpected success is not to be trusted with a preface. I made a
few further very trifling alterations before moulds were taken, but
since the summer of 1872, as new editions were from time to time
wanted, they have been printed from stereos then made.
Having now, I fear, at too great length done what I was asked to
do, I should like to add a few words on my own account. I am still
fairly well satisfied with those parts of "Erewhon" that were
repeatedly rewritten, but from those that had only a single writing
I would gladly cut out some forty or fifty pages if I could.
This, however, may not be, for the copyright will probably expire
in a little over twelve years. It was necessary, therefore, to
revise the book throughout for literary inelegancies--of which I
found many more than I had expected--and also to make such
substantial additions as should secure a new lease of life--at any
rate for the copyright. If, then, instead of cutting out, say
fifty pages, I have been compelled to add about sixty invita
Minerva--the blame rests neither with my publisher nor with me, but
with the copyright laws. Nevertheless I can assure the reader
that, though I have found it an irksome task to take up work which
I thought I had got rid of thirty years ago, and much of which I am
ashamed of, I have done my best to make the new matter savour so
much of the better portions of the old, that none but the best
critics shall perceive at what places the gaps of between thirty
and forty years occur.
Lastly, if my readers note a considerable difference between the
literary technique of "Erewhon" and that of "Erewhon Revisited," I
would remind them that, as I have just shown, "Erewhon" look
something like ten years in writing, and even so was written with
great difficulty, while "Erewhon Revisited" was written easily
between November 1900 and the end of April 1901. There is no
central idea underlying "Erewhon," whereas the attempt to realise
the effect of a single supposed great miracle dominates the whole
of its successor. In "Erewhon" there was hardly any story, and
little attempt to give life and individuality to the characters; I
hope that in "Erewhon Revisited" both these defects have been in
great measure avoided. "Erewhon" was not an organic whole,
"Erewhon Revisited" may fairly claim to be one. Nevertheless,
though in literary workmanship I do not doubt that this last-named
book is an improvement on the first, I shall be agreeably surprised
if I am not told that "Erewhon," with all its faults, is the better
reading of the two.
SAMUEL BUTLER.
August 7, 1901
Erewhon : Chapter I - Waste Lands
Erewhon