I try and stay away from the personal lives of Australia's great Traditional poets because I find that it can potentially alter or spoil my view of their beautiful writing.
My attitude is that the words speak to me ... and for example with Barcroft Boake one is reading the words of someone who committed suicide by hanging himself with a stockwhip .. shocking... and it can overhang the writing just a tad.
Consequently it is their poetry that interests me and I try and confine myself to that... which is a personal thing of course.
To keep the writer and his writing separate. I have old books by enjoyable ballad writers and I have no idea of their lives or background.. and do not want to know.
Bio's of Henry are there on the internet and can be studied and memorised if that is meaningful.
But surely that is to miss the point?
I have quoted before (I think) the Judge at the Victorian Premier's Literary Award at the public meeting.. "Oh Lawson, he was a drunkard wasn't he?" The attempt to dismiss his writing by overlaying his imperfect life onto his great writing and thus denigrate it.
Was he in fact a drunkard? ... perhaps... but if so he was a brilliant drunkard, something that is conveniently overlooked.
Lawson might have been a man of faults as might be judged from the comfort of an arm-chair and the safety of some 100 years distance. We live in a politically correct world today and his lines (that must be seen in the context they were used) "Our blacks are just the lowest race on earth" Bush School, would send today's media into apoplexy.... not to mention being labelled!.... but not so then. Different times, and for anyone to go back and apply today's values and draw conclusions or even subtle inferences is dangerous and undermines him.
Henry Lawson spoke simply and straight from the heart to the ordinary man. A very rare gift in my opinion.
If the ordinary man was perfect and Lawson was not, then he may not have related so well... but happily for Henry most of us are also imperfect.
My own assessment is that Lawson was brilliant and the best.
His prose was ordinary I believe and in case anyone thinks I stand alone in that view I can assure you that it is not an uncommon opinion. I recall that somewhere I even have the late Leonard Teale in a taped interview saying so. .. but Henry's poetry? sheer brilliance. If anyone doubts that, then just pick up a book "The Poetical Works of Henry Lawson" and reconnect.
Here are two newspaper articles from my Historic Document archive. I offer no comment on them. ... click on OPEN.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/hpqwm5t3ngfcc ... .jpeg?dl=0
https://www.dropbox.com/s/plp7t5lxjjtj1 ... .jpeg?dl=0
However, in the book review George Johnson states..
"One thing I should say at once. I have never particularly liked or admired Lawson as a poet"
"Lawson's poetry jangles un-nervingly to me"
Ah yes, the perfect person to write a Lawson-related book review.
The newspaper articles were tucked away in a book "Henry Lawson : Poet and Short Story Writer" by Colin Roderick which was part of a lot of Australian Poetry books I bought at auction. I kept the Dennis etc and the free verse stuff went straight into the bin.... the green bin, not the recycle bin either. To make sure it was gone and buried.
In this book (pg 31) Prof Roderick says : "Lawson's verse is many things : it is the direct speech not only of Lawson the poet, but also of Lawson the social reformer, Lawson the politician, Lawson the seer identifying himself with Australia, Lawson the apologist for himself. It seems to me that anyone who puts Lawson's verse aside because he is uncertain how much of it reflects Lawson's mind is wide of the mark" True.
For a final word though, why not examine the contemporary inscription in an 1896 copy of "In The Days When The World Was Wide"
I scanned the original, plus my typed-up transcript of it. Fascinating insight into the world of Henry Lawson in 1896 and what real people thought of him then!! I hope it is of interest to some folk here.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/nfxhm27vadqot ... .jpeg?dl=0
https://www.dropbox.com/s/h2earcswlzj6t ... .jpeg?dl=0
Clearly Henry's poetry does not jangle on this guy's nerves in 1896. Could it be that Henry was such a literary giant that he did overshadow many wanna-be's, and perhaps still does? Is he resented? Who knows.