Fugitive Papers

Introduction

There is no reason to think that the form of the epic or of the poetic play suit a woman any more than the sentence suits her. But all the older forms of literature were hardened any set by the time she became a writer.¹

The poetry of Katherine Philips (1632–1674) is mentioned in several studies of 17^th century English literature. Many texts allude to her friendship poems without delving deeper into her work, and there is no holistic analysis of her entire body of work. In the 21^st century, interest in Philips’ work began to grow after a long period of near obscurity. The preceding shortage of research on her had clear consequences, both academic and cultural, as the lack of earlier critical analysis meant that Philips went largely overlooked in both general and monographic pioneering studies such as A Literary History of England,² edited by Albert Croll Baugh; and The Proper Wit of Poetry, by George Williamson, printed in 1935 and 1961, respectively. Thus, the relevant research and preliminary advances had not yet been carried out to allow later scholars to focus on the poet in detail.

Current research features a growing academic interest in Katherine Philips, but however I believe the authoress requires, and merits, more critical attention than has been devoted to her to date. New studies of Philips’ poetry are needed. Having clarified this starting point, the first thing I consider necessary is a comprehensive overview of her literary career, as one is necessary that might integrate all the thematic elements of her legacy, so as to present as complete a picture of her work as possible. Of course, this book will not completely satisfy these needs, but it does seek to present a synopsis of Orinda’s life and work, focusing on ←9 | 10→each key date in her biography, and each of her landmark publications, as rigorously as possible.

Of particular significance is the volume of poems that was printed in 1664 and that the author sought to suppress immediately after its ←10 | 11→publication. Its title contains her initials, revealing that the author was a woman by the use of the female form “Mrs”: Poems by the Incomparable Mrs. K. P. We cannot now say for certain whether it was modesty on the part of the author at seeing her poetry published, or whether her decision to challenge the publication was a response to the reactions of those closest to her. What we do know is that the edition was published by a leading bookseller of the time and that, although it may seem paradoxical, the writer subsequently strove to have the book removed from circulation. The author’s efforts are indicated in her personal correspondence, in which she even goes as far as to say that the book was prepared without her knowledge or consent. After Orinda’s death, another volume of her poems was printed in 1667. On this occasion, the text was given a more elaborate title, in which her name appeared in full: Poems By the most deservedly Admired Mrs Katherine Philips. The matchless Orinda. To which is added Monsieur Corneille’s Pompey & Horace. Tragedies. With several other Translations out of French. I have not found any evidence to support whether Katherine Philips collaborated in the drafting of this book, or to what extent she may have been involved in its creation. What I can affirm is that the 1667 volume is a text of fundamental importance in the history of English literature; for its original and varied content; for the series of laudatory pieces that introduce it, penned by some of the most renowned contemporary figures in celebration of its author; and for the fact that it contains the full corpus of an early modern woman poet. The use of the striking superlative “match-less” and the evaluative phrase “most deservedly admired” indicates the considerable renown that the author had achieved by the end of her life. The descriptive nature of the title is a concise encapsulation of her remarkable legacy. Logically, these chronological milestones (1663, 1664 and 1667) are of particular relevance, both in the career of the writer and in literary historiography, in general.

Philips is mentioned in several panoramic studies of 17^th-century literature, as a poet of the Caroline era who kept the flame of the Cavalier poets alive during the Interregnum and the Protectorate (Andreadis, 1989: 35). In some studies she is afforded a greater degree of prominence; for example, the doctoral thesis of Maren-Sofie Røstvig (published in book form in 1954, The Happy Man: Studies in the Metamorphosis of a Classical ideal) explores the summum bonum of the beatus ille, ←11 | 12→comparing the poetry of Orinda with the work of Plato, Epicurus and Lucretius. Røstvig infers that the theme of retreat was cultivated by the minor poets of the period because “the major stars were busy in other hemispheres, penning satires and mock epics, or erotic lyrics without much depth or sincerity of passion” (Røstvig, 1962: 261–262). Katherine Philips is also mentioned by James Tuner in the introductory chapter to his study on topographical poetry entitled The Poetry of Landscape. Rural Scenery and Society in English Poetry 1630–1660, where he speaks of the poet’s “rural verse” (Turner, 1979: 2). Turner goes on to focus on two key poems, for their thematic content: “A Country-Life” (2–3) and “Resvery” (45). On other occasions, however, Philips is only mentioned in passing; for example, as a minor preciosité reflecting “the growing influence of neoclassicism” (Waller, 1974: 441). Other studies do not mention Orinda at all; for instance Graham Parry’s two excellent books Seventeenth Century Poetry. The Social Context and The Seventeenth Century. The Intellectual and Cultural Context of English Literature: 1603–1700, published in 1985 and 1989 respectively, dedicate chapters to Ben Jonson, John Donne, George Herbert, Henry Vaughan, Thomas Traherne, Richard Crashaw, Robert Herrick, Abraham Cowley, John Milton, John Dryden, and Andrew Marvell, among other intellectual figures. The fact that Katherine Philips is not included in either of these books – which are both important academic contributions providing a systematic overview – indicates that the poet had been very little studied through the end of the 1980s.