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.
MACKLIN'S ORDINARY AND SCHOOL OF CRITICISM
Mr. George Wingrove Cooke, in his valuable work, The History of Party (vol. iii, p. 66.), gives an admirable sketch of the life of Edmund Burke. Speaking of his early career, and of the various designs which he formed for his future course, we are told that "at Macklin's Debating Society he made the first essay of his powers of oratory."
Mr. Cunningham, in his Handbook for London, speaks of Macklin delivering Lectures on Elocution at Pewterer's Hall (p. 394.), and of his residence in Tavistock Row, Covent Garden (p. 484.); but he does not mention Macklin's Debating Society. I imagine that by this "Debating Society" is meant an Ordinary and School of Criticism, which that eminent actor established in the year 1754, in the Piazza, Covent Garden. Mr. W. Cooke, in his Life of Macklin, 1806, p. 199., says—
"What induced him [Macklin] to quit the stage in the full vigour of fame and constitution, was one of those schemes which he had long previously indulged himself in, of suddenly making his fortune by the establishment of a tavern and coffee-house in the Piazza, Covent Garden; to which he afterwards added a school of oratory, upon a plan hitherto unknown in England, founded upon the Greek, Roman, French, and Italian Societies, under the title of The British Inquisition."
The first part of this plan (the public ordinary) was opened on the 11th of March, 1754; and an amusing account of its operations may be found in Angelo's Pic Nic, p. 32. The second part of "Macklin's mad plan," as it was then termed, "The British Inquisition," commenced proceedings on the 21st of November in the same year; and here, according to the first advertisement, "such subjects in Arts, Sciences, Literature, Criticism, Philosophy, History, Politics, and Morality, as shall be found useful and entertaining to society, will be lectured upon and freely debated."
"LOVE'S LABOUR'S LOST (Act II. Scene 1.)
"It is odd that Shakspeare should make Dumain inquire after Rosaline, who was the mistress of Biron, and neglect Katharine, who was his own. Biron behaves in the same manner.—Perhaps all the ladies wore masks.—Steevens.
"They certainly did."—Malone.
"And what if they did?"—Query.
In what possible way can the circumstance of the ladies wearing masks lessen the inconsistency pointed out by Steevens?
Rosaline has been immediately singled out by her former admirer—
"Did I not dance with you in Brabant once?"
—a circumstance quite inconsistent with uncertain identity afterwards.
But if the gentlemen really did mistake the identity of their ladies, Boyet's answers must have misled them into a similar mistake in their names: so that the natural consequence would have been, that each lover would afterwards address his poetical effusion nominally to the wrong lady! which does not appear to have been the case.
Therefore, even if the masking be admitted, it can in no way lessen the inconsistency of the cross questions, which to me appears to have arisen from a most palpable instance of clerical or typographical transposition.
Steevens was on the right scent, although he rejected it in the same breath, when he said,—
"No advantage would be gained by an exchange of names, because the last speech is determined to Biron by Maria, who gives a character of him after he has made his exit."
This is a good reason against a transposition in the male names, but it is none whatever against the same occurrence in the ladies' names; and consequently it is there that the true solution of the difficulty must be sought.
If we admit that a substitution may have occurred, of "Rosaline" for "Katharine," in Boyet's answer to Dumain, and vice versâ in his answer to Biron, all difficulty disappears at once.
The completeness with which the idea of transposition not only accounts for the existence of the error, but at the same time suggests the manner in which it may be corrected, ought of itself to secure its reception, even if it were not corroborated in a very singular way by the following collateral circumstance.
It may be observed that Boyet points out two of the ladies, not only by name, but also by styling them "heirs;" one of Falconbridge, the other of Alençon. Now in their previous descriptions of their respective lovers, one of the ladies (Maria) says she had met Longaville at a marriage of a "Falconbridge;" another lady (Katharine) says she had met Dumain at "Duke Alençon's." When, therefore, we find that Boyet, in reply to Longaville's question, designates Maria as "heir of Falconbridge," it is in direct analogy that he should, in answer to Dumain's question, designate Katharine as "heir of Alençon;" but, in consequence of the transposition of names, Boyet appears, as the text now stands, to confer that designation, not upon Katharine, but upon Rosaline, whom Biron had met at Brabant!
There can be no doubt, therefore, that the names of Katharine and Rosaline have been transposed contrary to the author's intention, and the only wonder is—not that such a very commonplace error should have been committed—but that it should have been suffered to remain through so many editions up to the present time.
Leeds, Feb. 10. 1851.
NOTES ON NEWSPAPERS
I send you the following, as a help to "Materials for a satisfactory History of Newspapers," alluded to in the last volume of "Notes and Queries," p. 375.
I have in my possession some old newspapers, ranging from 1691 to 1694, entitled A Collection for Improvement of Husbandry and Trade, edited by John Houghton, F.R.S., St. Bartholomew Lane, behind the Royal Exchange, London. The size is a small folio, published weekly, generally every Friday.