A number of poems not included
in these editions have been attributed to him by Simeon (1856),
Grosart (1873), and others on very insufficient grounds, whether of
external evidence or internal probability.
in these editions have been attributed to him by Simeon (1856),
Grosart (1873), and others on very insufficient grounds, whether of
external evidence or internal probability.
John Donne
'their nothing' p.
31, l.
53; 'reclaim'd'
p. 56, l. 25; 'sport' p. 56, l. 27. ]
[Footnote 44: The _1633_ text of these letters, which is
generally that of _A18_, _N_, _TC_, is better than I was at
one time disposed to think, though there are some indubitable
errors and perhaps some original variants. The crucial reading
is at p. 197, l. 58, where _1633_ and _A18_, _N_, _TC_ read
'not naturally free', while _1635-69_ and _O'F_ read 'borne
naturally free', at first sight an easier and more natural
text, and adopted by both Chambers and Grosart. But
consideration of the passage, and of what Donne says
elsewhere, shows that the _1633_ reading is certainly right. ]
[Footnote 45: The _1650_ printer delighted in colons, which he
generally substituted for semicolons indiscriminately. ]
CANON.
The authenticity of all the poems ascribed to Donne in the old
editions is a question which has never been systematically and fully
considered by his editors and critics.
A number of poems not included
in these editions have been attributed to him by Simeon (1856),
Grosart (1873), and others on very insufficient grounds, whether of
external evidence or internal probability. Of the poems published in
_1633_, one, Basse's _An Epitaph upon Shakespeare_, was withdrawn at
once; another, the metrical _Psalme 137_, has been discredited and
Chambers drops it. [1] Of those which were added in _1635_, one _To Ben
Ionson. 6 Ian. 1603_, has been dropped by Grosart, the Grolier Club
edition, and Chambers on the strength of a statement made to Drummond
by Ben Jonson. [2] But the editors have accepted Jonson's statement
without apparently giving any thought to the question whether, if this
particular poem is by Roe, the same must not be true of its companion
pieces, _To Ben. Ionson. 9 Novembris, 1603_. and _To Sir Tho. Roe.
1603_. They are inserted together in _1635_, and are strikingly
similar in heading, in style, and in verse. Nor has any critic, so far
as I know, taken up the larger question raised by rejecting one of the
poems ascribed to Donne in _1635_, namely, are not all the poems
then added made thereby to some extent suspect, and if so can we
distinguish those which are from those which are not genuine? I
propose then to discuss, in the light afforded by a wider and more
connected survey of the seventeenth-century manuscript collections,
the authenticity of the poems ascribed to Donne in the old editions,
and to ask what, if any, poems may be added to those there published.
For this discussion an invaluable starting-point is afforded by the
edition of 1633, the manuscript group _D_, _H49_, _Lec_, and the
manuscript group _A18_, _N_, _TCC_, _TCD_. Taken together, and used to
check one another, these three collections provide us with a _corpus_
of indubitable poems which may be used as a test by which to try other
claimants.
p. 56, l. 25; 'sport' p. 56, l. 27. ]
[Footnote 44: The _1633_ text of these letters, which is
generally that of _A18_, _N_, _TC_, is better than I was at
one time disposed to think, though there are some indubitable
errors and perhaps some original variants. The crucial reading
is at p. 197, l. 58, where _1633_ and _A18_, _N_, _TC_ read
'not naturally free', while _1635-69_ and _O'F_ read 'borne
naturally free', at first sight an easier and more natural
text, and adopted by both Chambers and Grosart. But
consideration of the passage, and of what Donne says
elsewhere, shows that the _1633_ reading is certainly right. ]
[Footnote 45: The _1650_ printer delighted in colons, which he
generally substituted for semicolons indiscriminately. ]
CANON.
The authenticity of all the poems ascribed to Donne in the old
editions is a question which has never been systematically and fully
considered by his editors and critics.
A number of poems not included
in these editions have been attributed to him by Simeon (1856),
Grosart (1873), and others on very insufficient grounds, whether of
external evidence or internal probability. Of the poems published in
_1633_, one, Basse's _An Epitaph upon Shakespeare_, was withdrawn at
once; another, the metrical _Psalme 137_, has been discredited and
Chambers drops it. [1] Of those which were added in _1635_, one _To Ben
Ionson. 6 Ian. 1603_, has been dropped by Grosart, the Grolier Club
edition, and Chambers on the strength of a statement made to Drummond
by Ben Jonson. [2] But the editors have accepted Jonson's statement
without apparently giving any thought to the question whether, if this
particular poem is by Roe, the same must not be true of its companion
pieces, _To Ben. Ionson. 9 Novembris, 1603_. and _To Sir Tho. Roe.
1603_. They are inserted together in _1635_, and are strikingly
similar in heading, in style, and in verse. Nor has any critic, so far
as I know, taken up the larger question raised by rejecting one of the
poems ascribed to Donne in _1635_, namely, are not all the poems
then added made thereby to some extent suspect, and if so can we
distinguish those which are from those which are not genuine? I
propose then to discuss, in the light afforded by a wider and more
connected survey of the seventeenth-century manuscript collections,
the authenticity of the poems ascribed to Donne in the old editions,
and to ask what, if any, poems may be added to those there published.
For this discussion an invaluable starting-point is afforded by the
edition of 1633, the manuscript group _D_, _H49_, _Lec_, and the
manuscript group _A18_, _N_, _TCC_, _TCD_. Taken together, and used to
check one another, these three collections provide us with a _corpus_
of indubitable poems which may be used as a test by which to try other
claimants.
