Dryden, as sir Walter Scott observes, left a name in literature "second only to those of Milton and Shakspere"; but, popular as his writings were, he gave no collective edition of his poetical or dramatic works. The current editions of his poems may therefore be open to censure, both on the score of deficiency and redundancy—and such I believe to be the fact.

An Essay on satire, itself a coarse satire, has been ascribed to him for more than a century on dubious authority, and the correctness of this ascription has been properly suggested as a question for examination.

We have to decide on the credibility of two opposite statements, as made in the publications about to be enumerated:—

1. "The works of John Sheffield, earl of Mulgrave, marquis of Normanby, and duke of Buckingham. London: printed for John Barber, 1723. 4º. 2 vols."

2. "The works of John Sheffield, earl of Mulgrave, marquis of Normanby, and duke of Buckingham. Printed for John Barber, alderman of London, 1726. Small 8º. 2 vols."

3. "Original poems and translations, by John Dryden, Esq. London: printed for J. and R. Tonson, 1743. 12º. 2 vols."

In the two former publications, the poem appears as the entire composition of the noble author, and is said to have been "written in the year 1675." In the latter publication it appears without date, and is said to be "by Mr. Dryden and the earl of Mulgrave."

The publications were posthumous, and as the editors afford no explanation of the point in dispute, we must consult the reputed authors.

In the year 1691, as an advertisement to King Arthur, a dramatic opera, Dryden printed a catalogue of his "plays and poems in quarto," in order to prevent future mis-ascriptions. The catalogue comprises ten poems, but no Essay on satire. The publisher of King Arthur was Mr. Jacob Tonson.

In 1682, the earl of Mulgrave published, anonymously, through the agency of Mr. Joseph Hindmarsh, an Essay upon poetry. It contains these lines:—

"The laureat here may justly claim our praise, Crown'd by Mac-Fleckno with immortal bays; Though prais'd and punish'd for another's rimes, His own deserve that glorious fate sometimes, Were he not forc'd to carry now dead weight, Rid by some lumpish minister of state."

In 1717, Mr. Tonson published Poems by the earl of Roscommon; and added thereto the Essay on poetry, "with the leave and with the corrections of the author." The lines shall now be given in their amended state, as they appear in that volume, with the accompanying notes:—

"The Laureat2 here may justly claim our praise, Crown'd by Mack-Fleckno3 with immortal bays; Tho' prais'd and punish'd once for other's4 rhimes, His own deserve as great applause sometimes; Yet Pegasus5, of late, has born dead weight, Rid by some lumpish ministers of state."

Next to Dryden and the earl of Mulgrave, as authorities on this question, comes the elder Jacob Tonson. Both writers were contributors to his Poetical miscellanies. In 1701 he published Poems on various occasions, etc. By Mr. John Dryden. The volume has not the Essay on satire. The same Tonson, as we have just seen, gave currency to the assertion that Dryden was "ignorant of the whole matter."

To this display of contemporary evidence must be added the information derivable from the posthumous publications enumerated in the former part of this article. The publication of 1723 was made by direction of the duchess of Buckingham. The couplet, "Tho' prais'd," &c., and the appended note, were omitted. In 1726 Mr. alderman Barber republished the volumes "with several additions, and without any castrations," restoring the couplet and note as they were printed in 1717. In the Original poems of Dryden, as collectively published in 1743, the joint authorship is stated without a word of evidence in support of it.

If we turn to the earlier writers on Dryden, we meet with no facts in favour of his claim to the poem in question. Anthony à Wood says, "the earl of Mulgrave was generally thought to be the author." This was written about 1694. The reverend Thomas Birch, a man of vast information, repeated this statement in 1736. Neither Congreve nor Giles Jacob allude to the poem.

The witnesses on the other side are, 1. The publisher of the State poems. 2. Dean Lockier. And 3. The reverend Thomas Broughton.

The State poems, in which the essay is ascribed to Dryden, may be called a surreptitious publication: it carries no authority. The testimony of Lockier, which is to the same effect, was never published by himself. It was a scrap of conversation held thirty years after the death of Dryden, and reported by another from memory. The reverend Thomas Broughton, who asserts the joint authorship of the poems, cites as his authority the Original poems, &c. Now Kippis assures us that he edited those volumes. On the question at issue, he could discover no authority but himself!

Dryden may have revised the Essay on satire. Is that a sufficient reason for incorporating it with his works? Do we tack to the works of Pope the poems of Wycherly and Parnell? We have authority for stating that Pope revised the Essay on poetry. Is it to be added to the works of Pope? Be it as it may, the poem was published, in substance, six years before Pope was born!

As the evidence is very brief, there can be no necessity for recapitulation; and I shall only add, that if about to edit the poetical works of Dryden, I should reject the Essay on satire.

Bolton Corney.

Страница 2 из 15

Назад 1 2 3…15 Далее