« ÖncekiDevam »
nothing of some vague traditions of the kind connected with the names of Queen Anne Boleyn and her brother, Lord Rochford; or of the four Latin lines said to have been written with a pin on the walls of her prison by Lady Jane Grey; we have many such pieces as those entitled “Verses written by the Lord Admiral Seymour the week before he was beheaded, 1549;” and “Verses made by [Robert] Earl of Essex in his trouble,” with others “composed in the Tower." * At a later period, we have “ Verses said to be made by Thomas, Earl of Strafford, not long before his death,” besides “ The Litutenant's (Strafford's] Legend,” which are probably both spurious; and also “ Majesty in Misery,” which is reported, on very good authority, to be the genuine composition of King Charles.t In some of these cases, it is possible that both name and tradition are correct;-in others, it is nearly certain that both are alike fictitious;—but the existence of a double mis-statement in these latter cases will not prove that it exists in all ; nor are we justified in inferring that a name is forged, because a legend is erroneous. In the case of a poem like “ The Lie,” so many things concurred to make it likely that the story would be connected with it,—the subject of the verses, the celebrity and fate of their reputed author, and the report of
. On a poem said to have been written by his father, Walter, Earl of Essex," the nighte before he died,” see Park's Walpole, ii. 18-21. It is another of the many cases where the old MSS. and the printed copies are at variance.- Ritson records a great number of these so-called dying.verses, besides those which I have mentioned. See Bibl. Poet. pp. 22 (cf. p. 97), 117, 145, 174, 203, 209, 309, 334, &c.—They were sometimes actually nsed as Epitaphs. See, for example, those of Richard Carew of Anthony, in Lyson's Magn. Brit. iii. 17.
+ These pieces are all well-known.--A remarkable instance of double forgery, differing from those named above, in that the actual death of another person is assumed as the occasion of a poem, and not the impending death of its author, is mentioned by Mr. Dyce, Life of Shirley, p. liii. It is the case of Shirley's Dirge, “ The glories of onr blood and state"-which was printed in a vol. of Butler's Posthumous Works, as "a thought upon death, after hearing of the murder of Charles I.”
the manner in which some of his latest moments were .employed,—that we should have had no reason to be surprised at the tradition, could we prove still more conclusively that Raleigh wrote it, as we can prove that it was written,“ more than twenty years before his death."
These general remarks will serve to explain the origin of those contradictory statements, which we find even in respect to some of the poems which Izaak Walton edited; and their application to the poems reprinted in the Third Part of this volume, as well to those of which we have been speaking in this Introduction, is sufficiently obvious. They will also account for the long lists of various readings which I have appended to most of the separate poems;—and this is, I think, the last subject which seems to require notice here. When a writer has conducted his own compositions through the press, it is mere waste of labour to bring together all the trifling alterations which have been afterwards introduced by careless copyists; but the case is altogether different, when poems have come down to us in the very form which most exposed them to corruption. Even in the First Part, we cannot be certain how far the text preserves the very words which Wotton used; for though few men have been so richly endowed as Izaak Walton with the higher qualifications of a faithful and affectionate biographer, it is plain that, as an editor, he cannot always claim the merit of minute and scrupulous fidelity in transcription. Otherwise, we should not have found so many variations between the different copies of poems which he published in different places; nor would there have been so much agreement in rejected readings as we sometimes observe in copies obtained from other sources. It is scarcely necessary to remark, however, that the best reading (or what seems to be such) is not always the most genuine; and the advantages of an established standard are so obvious, that I have never disturbed his text, either in the First or Second Part, without great reluctance. The same plan has been followed in
the Third Part, in the treatment of the text which has been chosen in each particular case.
As to those variations which are obviously erroneous, they have been preserved to supply evidence of the degree of credit which is due to the transcripts from which they were derived.
Jan, 18: 1845 :
P.S. The 55th publication of the Percy Society, which was not delivered to the Members till after the preceding sheets were printed, furnishes us (at p. 14) with a different copy of the lines given on p. 114 in this volume, by which their real nature, as I had understood it, is proved beyond dispute.* Another libel on Raleigh, which is printed in the same tract (pp. 15-18), contains a curious parody on the Sonnet addressed to him by Spenser :
“ I pitty that the sommers nightingale,
Immortall Cinthia's sometime deare delight,
That us'd to singe so sweete a madrigale,” &c. Spenser's words are :-
“ To thee, that art the Summer's nightingale,
Thy sovereign Goddess's most dear delight,
Why do I send this rustic madrigale," &c. The name“ Cynthia” was probably chosen with a reference to Raleigh's poem (now lost) which bore that title. See above, pp. xxiv, n. xxxvii, n,
March 6: 1845:
* From the expressions used by the Editor, Mr. Halliwell, in his Preface, I believe he will not be surprised to learn that these lines (to which some others are added in his copy) were printed in the Oxford ed. of Raleigh's Works.—"The Lots,” which be gives on pp. 5-10, were written by Sir John Davies; and were printed in Davison's Poeticall Rhapsodie. The two copies, however, are by no means the same; and each supplies some omissions in the other.-The poem which be quotes on p. 47, from the Phænix Nest, was printed also in England's Helicon and Davison; and is included in the modern eds, of Raleigh. See above, on No. x,
[The Poems to wbich no mark is prefixed are arranged above (pp. xliv. xlix) in Class I., i. e. poems which are given to Raleigh with some shew of probability; those wbich are marked by an asterisk are arranged in Class II (pp. xlix-li) i. e. poems for which no direct evidence has been found, either to substantiate or to refute his claim ; those which are marked by an obelus are arranged in Class III (pp. li-liv) i. e. poems which certainly belong to other writers.—The “Nos" appended to each line refer to the detailed list of Raleigh's reputed poems.—Those lines which are printed in Italics belong to poems which are only qnoted or mentioned, but not reprinted, in this volume.]
Page * As at noon Dulcina rested (No. xxv. See pp. xxviii-ix.) As you came from the holy land (No. xxxv)...
122 Calling to mind, my eyes went long about (No, xxxii. See also pp. xxix, XXXV-xxxvi.)...
xlvi * Come live with me and be my dear (N,. xiii. Ignoto in E. H. See pp.
xxxi, xxxiii, n. 126, n.) Conceit, begotten by the eyes (No. xl.)
118 * Coridon, arise my Coridon (No. v. Ignoto in E. H. See p. xxxi.). Court's commender, State's maintainer (No. xxxvii. See p. 96.) + Court's scorn, State's disgracing (No. xxxvi. See p. 95.). Cowards (may] fear to die; but Courage stout (No. iii.) Even such is Time, that takes on trust (No. vi.). .
75 Fain would I, but I dare not (No. xxxiv. See p. 121, n.).. Give me my scallop-shell of quiet (No. xxvii.).
106 Go, Soul, the Body's guest (No. xxviii. See also pp. xxix, n. Ixx-lxxii.) 99 Had Lucan hid the truth to please the time (No. xlii. See also p. xlv, n.).
xxxviii Here lies Hobinoll, our pastor while ere (No. xxxviii. See p. 122, n.) Her face, her tongue, her wit, &c. (No. xxix. See also p. xxxv, n.) xlvii
. This Index is confined to the forty-four poems enumerated in the list given in the Introduction. For some additional fragments by Raleigh, see pp. xl, note, and xli.—Three other poerns in this volume have been assigned to him, but incorrectly. See pp. 46, 69, 111.–For other cases of the same kind, see pp. xxxvi, note, xxxvii, note, and xxxix.
by Lodge, but ascribed also to Dyer. See pp. xxx, lii, n.)
125, n. and 136.).
See p. xxx.)
See p. xxx.)
Other copies (in Phænix Nest, 1593, and Davison) begin,“ Now what