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.

My publisher is presenting a revised and expanded edition of this work to the public. He has asked me to say a few words about how it came to be. So, after more than thirty years, I will record as much as I can remember about it.

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.

The first part of “Erewhon” to be written was an article titled “Darwin among the Machines,” signed Cellarius. I wrote it in the Upper Rangitata district of Canterbury Province, as it was then called, in New Zealand. It appeared in the Press newspaper in Christchurch on June 13, 1863. A copy of the article is listed under my books in the British Museum catalogue. I might add that the opening chapters of “Erewhon” were also based on the Upper Rangitata district. I made whatever changes 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.

Shortly after the first article I mentioned, a second article on the same subject appeared in the Press. I have no copy of it. It discussed Machines from a different point of view and became the basis for pages 270–274 of this edition of “Erewhon.”¹ This view eventually led me to the theory I put forward in “Life and Habit,” published in November 1877. I have an Erewhonian philosopher give a brief outline of this theory in Chapter XXVII of this book. I believe the theory is quite sound.

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.”

In 1865 I rewrote and expanded “Darwin among the Machines” for the Reasoner, a London paper published by Mr. G. J. Holyoake. It appeared on July 1, 1865, under the title “The Mechanical Creation,” and can be seen in the British Museum. I rewrote and expanded it again until it took the form published 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.

The next part of “Erewhon” I wrote was the “World of the Unborn.” I sent an early version to Mr. Holyoake’s paper. But I cannot find it among the copies of the Reasoner in the British Museum, so I conclude it was not accepted. However, I have a fairly strong feeling that it appeared in a similar London paper not 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.

Around this time, I also wrote what eventually became the Musical Banks and the trial of a man for having consumption. I believe these four separate pieces were all that was written of “Erewhon” before 1870. Between 1865 and 1870 I wrote hardly anything. I hoped to succeed as a painter, a success I was not destined to achieve. But in the autumn of 1870, my friend, the late Sir F. N. Broome, suggested that I expand the articles I had already written and combine them into a book. He was then Mr. Broome. This was just as my paintings were beginning to be accepted occasionally for Royal Academy exhibitions. I was rather excited by the idea, but I worked on the manuscript only on Sundays. So it was several months before I 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. Trübner 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.

I see from my second Preface that I took the book to Messrs. Chapman & Hall on May 1, 1871. They rejected it on the advice of someone who has reached the highest rank among living writers. I then set the book aside until early 1872, when I took it to Mr. Trübner. As for its rejection by Messrs. Chapman & Hall, I believe their reader gave them sound advice. They told me he had reported that it was a philosophical work, unlikely to appeal to a large readership. I hope that, if I had been their reader and the book had been submitted to me, I would have advised them the same way.

“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.”

“Erewhon” appeared in the last day or two of March 1872. I think its unexpected success was mainly due to two early favorable reviews. The first appeared in the Pall Mall Gazette on April 12, and the second in the Spectator on April 20. There was another reason too. Once, I complained to a friend that although “Erewhon” had received such a warm welcome, all my later books had been practically stillborn. He said, “You forget one charm that ‘Erewhon’ had, but which none of your other books can have.” I asked what it was, and he 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.

The first edition of “Erewhon” sold out in about three weeks. I had not made printing molds, and demand was strong, so the book was immediately set in type again. I made a few minor changes and additions and added a Preface. I cannot say I am particularly proud of it. But an inexperienced writer, somewhat carried away by unexpected success, cannot be trusted to write a preface. I made a few more very minor changes before the molds were made. But since the summer of 1872, new editions have been printed as needed from the plates made then.

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.

I have now done what I was asked to do, though I fear I have gone on too long. I would like to add a few words of my own. I am still fairly satisfied with the parts of “Erewhon” that I rewrote several times. But I would gladly cut forty or fifty pages from the parts I wrote only once, 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 invitâ Minervâ—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.

This, however, may not be possible, because the copyright will probably expire in a little over twelve years. I therefore had to revise the whole book to correct awkward writing. I found many more such flaws than I had expected. I also had to make substantial additions to give the book a new lease of life, or at least its copyright. So, if I have been forced to add about sixty pages against my own creative judgment, instead of cutting out, say, fifty, neither my publisher nor I am to blame. The blame lies with the copyright laws. Nevertheless, I can assure the reader that I have done my best to make the new material resemble the better parts of the old. I have tried to make it so similar that only the best critics will notice where the gaps of thirty to forty years occur. This has been a tedious task, though. I thought I had finished with the work thirty years ago, and I am ashamed of much of it.

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” took 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.

Lastly, readers may notice a considerable difference between the literary techniques of “Erewhon” and “Erewhon Revisited.” I would remind them that, as I have just shown, “Erewhon” took about ten years to write. Even then, I wrote it with great difficulty. By contrast, I wrote “Erewhon Revisited” easily, between November 1900 and the end of April 1901. There is no central idea behind “Erewhon.” Its successor, however, is dominated by an attempt to imagine the effect of a single supposed great miracle. “Erewhon” had hardly any story, and I made little attempt to give its characters life and individuality. I hope I have largely avoided both defects in “Erewhon Revisited.” “Erewhon” was not a unified whole, but “Erewhon Revisited” may fairly claim to be one. Nevertheless, I have no doubt that “Erewhon Revisited” is better written than the first book. Even so, I shall be pleasantly surprised if people do not tell me that “Erewhon,” despite all its faults, is the better read.