Those who
prepared
them must
have known what they were about.
have known what they were about.
John Donne
This last
collection does contain some twelve poems not by Donne, but of
these the majority are found only in _N_ and _TCD_, and they make no
pretence to be Donne's. Three are initialled 'J. R. ' (in _TCD_), and
two of these, with some poems by Overbury and Beaumont, are not part
of the Donne collection but are added at the end. Another poem is
initialled 'R. Cor. ' The only poems which are included among Donne's
poems as though by him are _The Paradox_ ('Whoso terms Love a fire')
and the Letter or Elegy, 'Madam soe may my verses pleasing be. ' Of
these, the first is in all four manuscripts, the second only in _N_
and _TCD_. Neither is in _D_, _H49_, _Lec_, or _1633_. The last is by
Beaumont, and follows immediately a letter by Donne to the same lady,
the Countess of Bedford. Doubtless the two poems have come from some
collection in which they were transcribed together, ultimately from
a commonplace-book of the Countess herself. The former _may_ be by
Donne, but has probably adhered for a like reason to his paradox, 'No
lover saith' (p. 302), which immediately precedes it.
We have thus three collections, each of which has kept its canon pure
or very nearly so, and in which any mistake by one is checked by the
absence of the poem in the other two. It cannot be by accident that
these collections are so free from the unauthentic poems which other
manuscripts associate with Donne's.
Those who prepared them must
have known what they were about. Marriot must have had some help in
securing a text on the whole so accurate as that of _1633_, and in
avoiding spurious poems on the whole so well. When that guidance was
withdrawn he was only too willing to go a-gathering what would swell
the compass of his volume. If then a poem does not occur in any of
these collections it is not necessarily unauthentic, but as no such
poem has anything like the wide support of the manuscripts that these
have, it should present its credentials, and approve its authenticity
on internal grounds if external are not available.
We start then with a strong presumption, coming as close to
demonstration as the circumstances of the case will permit, in favour
of the absolute genuineness of all the poems in _1633_ (a glance down
the list headed 'Source' in the 'Contents' will show what these are)
except the two mentioned, and of all the poems added in _1635_, or
later editions, which are also in _D_, _H49_, _Lec_ and _A18_, _N_,
_TC_. [4] These last (to which I prefix the date of first publication)
are--
_1635. _ A Lecture upon the Shadow.
_1635. _ Elegie XI. The Bracelet.
_1635. _ Elegie XVI. On his Mistris.
_1669. _ Elegie XVIII. Love's Progresse.
collection does contain some twelve poems not by Donne, but of
these the majority are found only in _N_ and _TCD_, and they make no
pretence to be Donne's. Three are initialled 'J. R. ' (in _TCD_), and
two of these, with some poems by Overbury and Beaumont, are not part
of the Donne collection but are added at the end. Another poem is
initialled 'R. Cor. ' The only poems which are included among Donne's
poems as though by him are _The Paradox_ ('Whoso terms Love a fire')
and the Letter or Elegy, 'Madam soe may my verses pleasing be. ' Of
these, the first is in all four manuscripts, the second only in _N_
and _TCD_. Neither is in _D_, _H49_, _Lec_, or _1633_. The last is by
Beaumont, and follows immediately a letter by Donne to the same lady,
the Countess of Bedford. Doubtless the two poems have come from some
collection in which they were transcribed together, ultimately from
a commonplace-book of the Countess herself. The former _may_ be by
Donne, but has probably adhered for a like reason to his paradox, 'No
lover saith' (p. 302), which immediately precedes it.
We have thus three collections, each of which has kept its canon pure
or very nearly so, and in which any mistake by one is checked by the
absence of the poem in the other two. It cannot be by accident that
these collections are so free from the unauthentic poems which other
manuscripts associate with Donne's.
Those who prepared them must
have known what they were about. Marriot must have had some help in
securing a text on the whole so accurate as that of _1633_, and in
avoiding spurious poems on the whole so well. When that guidance was
withdrawn he was only too willing to go a-gathering what would swell
the compass of his volume. If then a poem does not occur in any of
these collections it is not necessarily unauthentic, but as no such
poem has anything like the wide support of the manuscripts that these
have, it should present its credentials, and approve its authenticity
on internal grounds if external are not available.
We start then with a strong presumption, coming as close to
demonstration as the circumstances of the case will permit, in favour
of the absolute genuineness of all the poems in _1633_ (a glance down
the list headed 'Source' in the 'Contents' will show what these are)
except the two mentioned, and of all the poems added in _1635_, or
later editions, which are also in _D_, _H49_, _Lec_ and _A18_, _N_,
_TC_. [4] These last (to which I prefix the date of first publication)
are--
_1635. _ A Lecture upon the Shadow.
_1635. _ Elegie XI. The Bracelet.
_1635. _ Elegie XVI. On his Mistris.
_1669. _ Elegie XVIII. Love's Progresse.
