Lost Masterpieces: Books We Know Existed But Can Never Read

The Ghosts in Literature's Attic: When Works Disappear Into Silence

Photo by Eduardo Olszewski on Unsplash

There is a special cruelty in knowing that a book existed, that an author completed it, that readers once held it in their hands and turned its pages, and yet we will never read it. Not because it is rare and expensive, hidden away in a private collection or locked in a vault, but because it is gone. Destroyed, burned, lost, vanished beyond recovery. These ghosts haunt the imagination of scholars and readers alike: the texts we know about only through references, fragments, testimony, and regret.

The catalogue of lost literature is vast. We possess perhaps one-third of Aristotle’s writings. Of Sappho’s nine books of poetry, only fragments survive. Sophocles wrote 123 plays; we have seven complete works. Aristophanes wrote forty plays; eleven remain. The mathematician Aristarchus of Samos outlined his heliocentric theory of the solar system in a book that is lost, leaving us to reconstruct his revolutionary ideas from scattered references in other texts. The ancient world was profligate with masterpieces, and time has been merciless.

But the losses that sting most are the recent ones, the deliberate destructions, the works that perished not through the slow entropy of centuries but through the decisive actions of individuals who held the power to preserve or destroy. These are the literary crimes that make us rage against the dying of particular lights.

The Burning of Byron’s Memoirs: The Greatest Literary Crime

On May 17, 1824, publisher John Murray, poet Thomas Moore, John Cam Hobhouse, and several other friends and executors of Lord Byron gathered in the upstairs drawing room of Murray’s house at 50 Albemarle Street in London. One month earlier, Byron had died in Greece at age thirty-six, and now these men held his memoirs, two volumes of manuscript written between 1818 and 1821, given by Byron to Moore with the understanding that they would eventually be published.

Murray believed the memoirs contained material so scandalous it would make Byron’s name infamous forever. William Gifford, who had read the manuscript, agreed. Moore protested that destroying the manuscript would be “contrary to Lord Byron’s wishes and unjust to myself.” He had, after all, sold the memoirs to Murray for 2,000 guineas (roughly $300,000 today) to alleviate his own financial difficulties, and he came to the meeting prepared to buy them back to prevent their destruction.

But Hobhouse and Murray prevailed. Representatives of Byron’s half-sister Augusta Leigh and his estranged wife Lady Byron, neither of whom had read the memoirs but feared their contents, added pressure. Moore reluctantly consented. The two volumes were torn up and burned in Murray’s fireplace. For centuries afterward, a massive portrait of Byron hung above that very fireplace, watching over the scene of literature’s most notorious act of destruction.

What was in those memoirs? We will never know with certainty. The few people who read them left conflicting testimony. Some maintained they were perfectly fit for anyone to read. Others insisted they were far too scabrous ever to be published. Thomas Moore, whose account of the burning was excised from the published version of his diary and remained unpublished for decades, seems to have been genuinely torn. Henry Colburn, who also read the manuscript, remembered that “three or four pages of it were too gross and indelicate for publication,” but claimed the rest “contained little traces of Lord Byron’s genius, and no interesting details of his life.”

Samuel Rogers provided one specific detail: he read that on his wedding night, Byron woke suddenly to find the taper in the room casting a ruddy glare through the crimson curtains, and exclaimed loudly enough to wake Lady Byron, “Good God, I am surely in hell!” If this is representative of the memoirs’ content, frank, dramatic, unflattering to Byron’s wife and others, then we can understand why those protecting Byron’s reputation wanted them destroyed. But understanding does not equal forgiveness.

Modern scholarship assigns blame primarily to Hobhouse, with Murray as the second most guilty party. Moore, despite nineteenth-century opinion that held him most responsible, appears to have been pressured into acquiescence. But whoever bears the greatest blame, the result is the same: we lost Byron’s full account of his life, loves, travels, and opinions. We lost his own voice describing events that biographers have been reconstructing from fragments ever since. We lost what might have been the most revealing autobiography of the Romantic period.

In destruction, Byron’s memoirs gained a perverse immortality. They became the most celebrated work of literature that no one would ever read, an absence that generates endless speculation. Novelists have attempted to recreate them: Christopher Nicole’s “The Secret Memoirs of Lord Byron” (1978) and Robert Nye’s “The Memoirs of Lord Byron” (1989) both imaginatively reconstruct what might have been. But these are fantasies built on scraps of testimony and biographical knowledge. The real memoirs, Byron’s own account in his own words, are ash and memory.

Just wanted to take a moment to let you know that I’ve recently published my new book called “Dark New England: The Gothic History and Spirit of American Intellectualism”, and it is available in ebook, paperback, and hardcover formats on Amazon. Please go and check it out. As always, I am incredibly grateful for any support and I really hope you enjoy the book.

Gogol’s Self-Immolation: Dead Souls and the Priest

Nikolai Gogol’s “Dead Souls” was published in 1842 and immediately recognized as a masterpiece of Russian literature. The novel follows Chichikov, a con man who travels through rural Russia buying the legal rights to dead serfs (who remain on tax rolls until the next census) in a scheme to mortgage them for profit. It is satire, social commentary, and grotesque humor rolled into a picaresque narrative that captures the absurdities and cruelties of Russian provincial life.

Gogol intended “Dead Souls” to be the first part of a trilogy, a Russian equivalent to Dante’s “Divine Comedy.” The first part represented Hell, showing the corruption and spiritual death of Russian society. The second and third parts would depict Purgatory and Paradise, showing redemption and spiritual renewal. Gogol worked for years on the second and third volumes, driven by a desire to create a moral epic that would transform Russian society.

But Gogol fell increasingly under the influence of Father Matthew Konstantinovskii, a priest who convinced him that his literary work was sinful and that he should devote himself entirely to religious contemplation. In February 1852, during a period of deep religious mania and physical weakness, Gogol burned the manuscripts of the second and third volumes of “Dead Souls.”

He immediately regretted it. He told friends he had burned the manuscripts by mistake, that he had intended to burn other papers and confused them. But this seems like the desperate excuse of a man who realized, too late, what he had done. Gogol fell into a depression from which he never recovered. He died ten days later, on March 4, 1852, at age forty-two, possibly from self-starvation undertaken as an extreme form of religious penance.

Scholars have reconstructed fragments of the second volume from earlier drafts that survived, enough to suggest that Gogol was attempting to show moral regeneration and the possibility of redemption. But the complete second volume and any portions of the third volume are gone. We have the Inferno but not the Paradiso. Gogol’s grand moral vision remains incomplete, truncated by religious fervor and a priest’s influence over a mentally unstable genius.

The loss is particularly cruel because it was self-inflicted. No external censor banned the work. No accident destroyed it. Gogol himself, in a moment of religious mania encouraged by a spiritual advisor, destroyed years of labor and a work that might have stood alongside his first volume as one of the monuments of nineteenth-century literature.

The Carrell Diaries: What the Family Destroyed

Lewis Carroll kept detailed diaries throughout his life, thirteen volumes that documented his daily activities, thoughts, relationships, and creative work. But four complete volumes and approximately seven pages of text are missing, destroyed by family members after his death in 1898.

The destruction’s motives remain subject to debate. Carroll’s relationship with young Alice Liddell, the inspiration for “Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland,” has been the subject of speculation for over a century. Did the missing volumes contain information that the family deemed inappropriate or scandalous? Were they destroyed to protect Carroll’s reputation? Or were the destroyed sections simply mundane, eliminated by family members who saw no value in preserving every detail of a bachelor academic’s daily life?

We will never know. The missing volumes might have clarified Carroll’s relationship with the Liddell family, the circumstances of his estrangement from them, and his complex feelings about childhood, innocence, and his own position as an adult fascinated by children. Or they might have contained nothing more interesting than notes on mathematics and accounts of dull college meetings. The destruction itself creates suspicion where transparency might have eliminated it.

The Many Losses of Aristotle

Aristotle wrote dialogues in the style of Plato, praised by Cicero for their eloquence. None survive. Aristotle wrote letters and poems. Lost. Of his systematic treatises, we possess perhaps one-third. The rest are known only through references in surviving texts or in the works of later commentators.

The most famous loss is the second book of the “Poetics.” The first book, which survives, deals with tragedy. Ancient references suggest the second book dealt with comedy, though whether it contained a theory of comedy as a dramatic form or a broader theory laughter is uncertain. This gap in European literary and philosophical history is so well-known that Umberto Eco made it the centerpiece of “The Name of the Rose,” where medieval monks kill to protect the secret that comedy and laughter have philosophical validity.

But Aristotle’s lost works extend far beyond the Poetics. He wrote on politics, metaphysics, natural science, ethics, logic, rhetoric, poetics, and more; all works that once existed, were read, quoted, referenced, and then disappeared. Some were lost when the Library of Alexandria burned. Some decayed through neglect. Some were deliberately destroyed by later thinkers who considered them pagan or dangerous.

What did we lose? A complete system of Western philosophy in its earliest, most vigorous form. Aristotle’s thought profoundly shaped medieval scholarship, but we inherited it through Arabic translations and later Latin versions, mediated and filtered. The original corpus, complete and in Aristotle’s own words, would allow us to understand his thought without these layers of transmission and interpretation. We have fragments and reconstructions. We lack the living voice.

Sappho’s Nine Books

Sappho of Lesbos wrote nine books of lyric poetry in the sixth century BCE. Ancient writers praised her as the tenth Muse, comparing her work to Homer’s. Only one complete poem survives, along with fragments of others: enough to tantalize us with her genius but not nearly enough to satisfy.

Why did Sappho’s work disappear? Time, neglect, and possibly deliberate destruction by early Christian authorities who found her subject matter, love, desire, particularly between women, morally unacceptable. The loss is catastrophic. We have enough fragments to know she was among the greatest lyric poets of antiquity, but we will never read the vast majority of what she wrote.

Modern discoveries occasionally surface new fragments, usually from papyrus scraps used to wrap mummies in Ptolemaic Egypt. Each new fragment is analyzed exhaustively, debated, contextualized. But we are piecing together a mosaic where most of the tiles are missing. The complete nine books, read as Sappho intended, are irrecoverable.

The Lost Plays of Shakespeare

Shakespeare wrote at least two plays that are lost: “Love’s Labour’s Won” (mentioned by Francis Meres in 1598 as a comedy by Shakespeare) and “Cardenio” (recorded as performed by the King’s Men in 1613 and attributed to Shakespeare and John Fletcher). We know these plays existed. We know they were performed. And then they vanished.

Or perhaps they didn’t. Some scholars believe “Love’s Labour’s Won” is actually “Much Ado About Nothing” or “The Taming of the Shrew” under another name. Others think it was a true lost play, possibly a sequel to “Love’s Labour’s Lost.” “Cardenio” is even more mysterious, several eighteenth-century plays claim to be based on it, including Lewis Theobald’s “Double Falsehood” (1727), but whether Theobald actually had access to Shakespeare’s manuscript or invented the attribution is debatable.

The loss of even one Shakespeare play is significant. If “Cardenio” truly existed and is truly lost, we have been deprived of one of the last works of the greatest playwright in English literature. If “Love’s Labour’s Won” was a separate play and not an alternate title, we lost an early comedy from the period when Shakespeare was refining his comic technique.

Richard Burton’s Scented Garden

Sir Richard Francis Burton, the famous explorer, linguist, and translator, completed a manuscript of a new translation from Arabic of “The Perfumed Garden,” which he titled “The Scented Garden.” This sixteenth-century Arabic sex manual was one of Burton’s major projects in the last years of his life. He believed the translation would be his financial and scholarly legacy, and he expected it to sell well given the success of his earlier translation of the “Arabian Nights.”

When Burton died in 1890, his widow Lady Isabel Burton burned the manuscript along with many of his other papers, journals, and correspondence. She claimed she did so protect his reputation, believing the sexually explicit content would damage his memory. She also said Burton had asked her to burn his papers, though this is disputed.

The destruction was immediate, methodical, and irrevocable. Lady Burton spent two weeks burning her husband’s unpublished writings in the fireplace of their home. Friends and scholars begged her to stop, to at least save manuscripts for expert evaluation. She refused. She believed she was protecting her husband. Instead, she destroyed years of scholarly work and deprived us of Burton’s final project in all its expertise and erudition.

Blake’s Lost Poems

William Blake, the visionary poet and artist, produced numerous long poems, short lyrics, and illuminated books during his lifetime. But soon after his death in 1827, Frederick Tatham, a friend and executor, burned a large number of Blake’s manuscripts, including longer poems. Tatham claimed he did so because he believed the manuscripts contained blasphemous or heretical material that would damage Blake’s reputation.

The irony is almost unbearable. Blake was a visionary mystic whose published works were already unconventional and challenging to orthodox Christianity. The lost manuscripts might have illuminated aspects of Blake’s vision that remain obscure in the surviving works. Instead, Tatham decided what posterity should and should not see, and he destroyed what did not meet his approval.

We will never know what was in those burned manuscripts. More prophetic books? More radical theology? More revolutionary politics? Blake’s vision was coherent but complex, and the lost works might have clarified elements that remain mysterious. Instead, we have Tatham’s decision to protect Blake by silencing him.

Sylvia Plath’s Lost Novel and Journals

Sylvia Plath committed suicide in 1963. Her husband, Ted Hughes, from whom she was separated, took over her estate and the unpublished writings. Hughes burned much of the journal that Plath wrote in the final months of her life, explaining that he did not want their children to read their mother’s final thoughts. He also claimed that a nearly finished novel, variously titled “Double Exposure” or “Double Take,” which featured a wife, husband, and mistress in what was probably a semi-autobiographical account of Plath’s relationship with Hughes, “disappeared” before 1970.

Hughes’s destruction of Plath’s final journal is admitted. His claim that the novel disappeared is widely disbelieved. Critics and scholars have accused Hughes of destroying evidence of his role in in Plath’s psychological deterioration and suicide. Hughes defended his actions as protecting their children and Plath’s memory, but many readers see it as self-protection and censorship.

The lost works would give us Plath’s unmediated voice during the period leading to her death. They would document her thoughts, her creative process, her mental state, her marriage’s collapse. Instead, Hughes controlled the narrative, publishing only what he chose to publish, destroying what he chose to destroy. Plath’s estate has since been returned to her heirs, but the destroyed works remain lost.

The Cruel Asymmetry of Loss

Lost works haunt us because they represent not just what was destroyed but what might have been. We cannot know with certainty what Byron’s memoirs contained or whether the complete “Dead Souls” trilogy would have achieved Gogol’s ambitions. We cannot know if the lost Shakespeare plays were masterpieces or mediocre collaborations. We cannot know if Plath’s final novel would have matched “The Bell Jar” or exceeded it.

But we know what we do not have, and that knowledge torments us. Every lost work is a road not taken, a voice silenced, a vision incomplete. And when the loss was deliberate, when someone held the manuscript and made a decision to destroy rather than preserve, the loss feels like theft, like murder, like a crime against culture itself.

The destroyers often claimed noble motives. They were protecting reputations. They were preventing scandal. They were obeying what they believed were the author’s wishes. Lady Byron’s representatives feared her humiliation. Father Konstantinovskii believed he was saving Gogol’s soul. Lady Burton believed she was honoring her husband. Frederick Tatham thought he was protecting Blake from accusations of heresy. Ted Hughes said he was protecting his children.

But posterity has not been kind to these decisions. We see them now as acts of vandalism, not preservation. We see the destroyers as gatekeepers who arrogated to themselves the right to decide what should and should not survive. They appointed themselves judges of what future generations should be allowed to read. And they destroyed evidence that contradicted their judgments, their values, their sense of propriety.

The cruelest aspect is that the destroyers were often those closest to the authors: publishers, friends, family, executors. These were the very people entrusted with preserving the authors’ legacies. They betrayed that trust. They chose their own comfort, their own reputations, their own beliefs over the principle that an author’s work belongs to posterity, not to their executors.

We cannot recover what was destroyed. The ash in Murray’s fireplace cannot be reconstituted into Byron’s memoirs. Gogol’s second and third volumes of “Dead Souls” are beyond resurrection. Plath’s journals and novel are gone. The lost plays of Aristophanes, the lost dialogues of Aristotle, the lost poems of Sappho; all are irrecoverable. We can study what survives. We can piece together what we can from references and fragments. We can attempt imaginative reconstructions. But the originals, the authentic works in the authors’ own words, are lost.

Yet the loss matters less for what it was than for what it represents. Each destroyed work stands as a reminder that preservation is a choice, that every generation holds the cultural inheritance of the past in trust for the future, that to destroy is easy and to preserve is hard. The lost masterpieces teach us that we cannot take survival for granted, that even the greatest works can vanish if those responsible for protecting them fail in their duty.

We are more careful now, or we try to be. We understand that letters should be archived, not burned. We know that drafts and working papers illuminate creative process. We recognize that “protecting reputation” often means suppressing uncomfortable truths. We have learned, painfully and belatedly, that transparency serves posterity better than censorship.

But the lesson came too late for Byron, Gogol, Carroll, Plath, and countless others whose works were deemed too scandalous, too dangerous, too uncomfortable to survive. Their ghosts linger in the attic of literature, and we can hear them still, faintly, in the references that survive, in the fragments that remain, in the testimony of those who read what we cannot.

Until our next journey, I remain your faithful correspondent,

The New England Scholar

From the Scholar’s Study