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 _Laureat_[2] here may justly claim our praise,
Crown'd by _Mack-Fleckno_[3] with immortal bays;
Tho' _prais'd_ and _punish'd_ once for other's[4] rhimes,
His own deserve as great applause sometimes;
Yet _Pegasus_[5], 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 {163} 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 a 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_.