ON SEVERAL
OCCASIONS.
Written by the Reverend
JOHN DONNE, D.D.
Late Dean of St. PAUL'S.
WITH
Elegies on the Author's Death.
To this Edition is added,
Some Account of the Life
of the Author.
LONDON:
Printed for J. Tonson, and Sold by
W. Taylor at the Ship in
Pater-noster-Row. 1719.
Title Page
This edition opens with the Epistle Dedicatory as in 1650-69,
which is followed by an abridgement of Walton's Life of Donne.
An examination of the text of the poems shows clearly that
this edition was printed from that of 1669, but is by no means
a slavish reproduction. The editor has consulted earlier
editions and corrected mistakes, but I have found no evidence
either that he knew the editions of 1633 and 1635, or had access
to manuscript collections. He very wisely dropped the Satire
'Sleep next Society', inserted for the first time by the editor
of 1669, and certainly not by Donne. It was reinserted by
Chalmers in 1810.12
These, then, are the early editions of Donne's poems. But
the printed editions are not the only form in which the poems,
or the great majority of the poems, have come down to us.
None of these editions, we have seen, was issued before the
poet's death. None, so far as we can discover (I shall
discuss this point more fully later), was printed from sources
carefully prepared for the press by the author, as were for
example the LXXX Sermons issued in 1640. But Donne's
poems were well known to many readers before 1633. One
of the earliest published references to them occurs in 1614, in
a collection of Epigrams by Thomas Freeman, called Runne |
And a great Cast | The | Second Book.
To Iohn Dunne.
The Storme describ'd hath set thy name afloate,
Thy Calme a gale of famous winde hath got:
Thy Satyres short, too soone we them o'relooke,
I prethee Persius write a bigger booke.
In 1616 Ben Jonson's Epigrammes were published in the
first (folio) edition of his works, and they contain the Epigram,
printed in this edition, To Lucy, Countesse of Bedford,
with Mr. Donnes Satyres. In these and similar cases the
'bookes' referred to are not printed but manuscript works.
Mr. Chambers has pointed out (Poems of John Donne, i, pp.
xxxviii-ix) an interesting reference in Drayton's Epistle to
Reynolds to poems circulating thus 'by transcription'; and
Anthony Wood speaks of Hoskins having left a 'book of poems
neatly written'. In Donne's own letters we find references to
his poems, his paradoxes and problems, and even a long treatise
like the ΒΙΑΘΑΝΑΤΟΣ, being sent to his friends with
injunctions of secrecy, and in the case of the last with an
express statement that it had not been, and was not to be,
printed. Sometimes the manuscript collection seems to have
been made by Donne himself, or on his instruction, for
a special friend and patron like Lord Ancrum; but after he
had become a distinguished Churchman who, as Jonson told
Drummond, 'repenteth highlie and seeketh to destroy all his
poems,' it was his friends and admirers who collected and
copied them. An instructive reference to the interest
awakened in Donne's early poems by his fame as a preacher
comes to us from Holland. Constantine Huyghens, the Dutch
poet, and father of the more famous scientist, Christian, was
a member of the Dutch embassy in 1618, 1621-23, and again in
1624. He moved in the best circles, and made the acquaintance
of Donne ('great preacher and great conversationalist', he calls
him) at the house probably of Sir Robert Killigrew. Writing
to his friend and fellow-poet Hooft, in 1630, he says:13
'I think I have often entertained you with reminiscences of
Dr. Donne, now Dean of St. Pauls in London, and on account
of this remunerative post (such is the custom of the English)
held in high esteem, in still higher for the wealth of his
unequalled wit, and yet more incomparable eloquence in the
pulpit. Educated early at Court in the service of the great;
experienced in the ways of the world; sharpened by study;
in poetry, he is more famous than anyone. Many rich fruits
from the green branches of his wit14 have lain mellowing
among the lovers of art, which now, when nearly rotten with
age, they are distributing. Into my hands have fallen, by
the help of my special friends among the gentlemen of that
nation, some five and twenty of the best sort of medlars.
Among our people, I cannot select anyone to whom they
ought to be communicated sooner than to you,15 as this poets
manner of conceit and expression are exactly yours, Sir.'
This is a very interesting piece of evidence as to the manner
in which Donne's poems had been preserved by his friends, and
the form in which they were being distributed. There is no
reference to publication. It is doubtless due to this activity in
collecting and transcribing the poems of the now famous
preacher that we owe the number of manuscript collections
dating from the years before and immediately after 1630.
Had Donne undertaken the publication of his own poems,
such of these manuscript collections as have been preserved—none
of which are autograph, and few or none of which have
a now traceable history—would have little importance for
a modern editor. The most that they could do would be to
show us occasionally what changes a poem had undergone
between its earliest and its latest appearance. But Donne's
poems were not published in this way, and the manuscripts
cannot be ignored. They must have for his editor at least the
same interest and importance as the Quartos have for the
editor of Shakespeare. Whatever opinion he may hold, on
a priori or a posteriori grounds, regarding the superior
authority of the First Folio of Shakespeare's plays, no editor,
not 'thirled to' a theory, will deny that a right reading has
been preserved for us often by the Quartos and the Quartos
only. No wise man will neglect the assistance even of the
more imperfect of them. Before therefore discussing the
relative value of the different editions, and the use that may
be made of the manuscripts, it will be well to give a short
description of the manuscripts which the present editor has
consulted and used, of their relation to one another, their
comparative value, and the relation of some of them to the
editions. It is, of course, possible that there are manuscripts
of Donne's poems which have not yet come to light; and
among them may be some more correctly transcribed than
any which has come into the present editor's hands. He has,
however, examined between twenty and thirty, and with the
feeling recently of moving in a circle—that new manuscripts
were in part or whole duplicates of those which had been
already examined, and confirmed readings already noted but
did not suggest anything fresh.
I will divide the manuscripts into four classes, of which the
first two, it will be seen at a glance, are likely to be the most
important for the textual critic.
(1) Manuscript collections of portions of Donne's poems, e.g.
the Satyres. The 'booke' to which Freeman refers in the
epigram quoted above was probably a small collection of this
kind, and we have seen that Jonson sent the Satyres to Lady
Bedford, and Francis Davison lent them to his brother. Of
such collections I have examined the following:
Q. This is a small quarto manuscript, bound up with a number
of other manuscripts, in a volume (MS. 216) in the library
of Queen's College, Oxford. It is headed Mr. John Dunnes
Satires, and contains the five Satires (which alone I have
accepted as Donne's own) followed by A Storme, A Calme,
and one song, The Curse (see p. 41), here headed Dirae.
As Mr. Chambers says (Poems of John Donne, i, p. xxxvi),
this is probably just the kind of 'booke' which Freeman read.
The poems it contains are probably those of Donne's poems
which were first known outside the circle of his intimate
friends.
What seems to be a duplicate of Q is preserved among the
Dyce MSS. in the South Kensington Museum. This contains
the five Satyres, and the Storme and Calme. The MSS. are
evidently transcribed from the same source, but one is not a
copy of the other. They agree in such exceptional readings
as e.g. Satyres, I. 58 'Infanta of London'; 94 'goes in the
way' &c.; II. 86 'In wringing each acre'; 88 'Assurances
as bigge as glossie civill lawes'. The last suggests that the
one is a copy of the other, but again they diverge in such
cases as III. 49 'Crants' Dyce MS.; 'Crates' Q; and IV.
215-16 'a Topclief would have ravisht him quite away' Q,
where the Dyce MS. preserves the normal 'a Pursevant would
have ravisht him quite away'.
If manuscripts like Q and the Dyce MS. carry us back, as
they seem to do, to the form in which the Satyres circulated
before any of the later collections of Donne's poems were
made (between 1620 and 1630), they are clearly of great
importance for the editor. The text of the Satyres in 1633
and the later editions, which closely resembles that of one of
the later MS. collections, presents many variants from the older
tradition. It is a difficult matter to decide how far these may
be the corrections of the author himself, or of the collector and
editor.
W. This, the Westmoreland MS., belonging to Mr. Edmund
Gosse, is one of the most interesting and valuable manuscripts of
Donne's poems which have come down to us. It is bound in
its original vellum, and was written, Mr. Warner, late Egerton
Librarian, British Museum, conjectured from the handwriting,
'a little later than 1625'. This date agrees with what one
would gather from the contents, for the manuscript contains
sonnets which must have been written after 1617, but does not
contain any of the hymns written just at the close of Donne's life.
W is a much larger 'book' than Q. It begins with the five
Satyres, as that does. Leaving one page blank, it then
continues with a collection of the Elegies numbered, thirteen in
all, of which twelve are Love Elegies, and one, the last, a Funeral
Elegy, 'Sorrow who to this house.'16 These are followed by
an Epithalamion (that generally called 'made at Lincolns
Inn') and a number of verse letters to different friends, some
of which are not contained in any of the old editions. So
many of them are addressed to Rowland Woodward, or
members of his family, that Mr. Gosse conjectures that the
manuscript was prepared for him, but this cannot be proved.17
The letters are followed by the Holy Sonnets, these by
La Corona, and the book closes (as many collections of the
poems do) with a bundle of prose Paradoxes, followed in
this case by the Epigrams. Both the Holy Sonnets and the
Epigrams contain poems not printed in any of the old
editions.
It should be noted that though W as a whole may have
been transcribed as late as 1625, it clearly goes back in
portions to an earlier date. The letters are headed e.g. To
Mr. H. W., To Mr. C. B., &c. Now the custom in manuscripts
and editions is to bring these headings up to date, changing
'To Mr. H. W.' into 'To Sr Henry Wotton'. That they bear
headings which were correct at the date when the poems were
written points to their fairly direct descent from the original
copies.
If Q probably represents the kind of manuscript which
circulated pretty widely, W is a good representative of the
kind which circulated only among Donne's friends. Some of
the poems escaped being transcribed into larger collections
and were not published till our own day. The value of W for
the text of Donne's poems must stand high. For some of the
letters and religious poems it is our sole authority. Though
a unique manuscript now, it was probably not so always, for
Addl. MS. 23229 in the British Museum contains a single
folio which must have been torn from a manuscript identical
with W. The handwriting is slightly different, but the order
of the poems and their text prove the identity.
A23. This same manuscript (Addl. MS. 23229), which is
a very miscellaneous collection of fragments, presented to the
Museum by John Wilson Croker, contains two other portions
of what seem to have been similar small 'books' of Donne's
poems. The one is a fragment of what seems to have been
a carefully written copy of the Epithalamion, with introductory
Eclogue, written for the marriage of the Earl of Somerset.
Probably it was one of those prepared and circulated at the
time. The other consists of some leaves from a collection of
the Satyres finely written on large quarto sheets.
G. This is a manuscript containing only the Metempsychosis,
or Progresse of the Soule, now in the possession of Mr. Gosse,
who (Life &c. of John Donne, i. 141) states that it 'belonged
to a certain Bradon, and passed into the Phillipps Collection'.
It is not without errors, but its text is, on the whole, more
correct than that of the manuscript source from which the
version of 1633 was set up in the first instance.
(2) In the second class I place manuscripts which are, or
aim at being, complete collections of Donne's poems. Most of
these belong to the years between 1620 and 1633. They vary
considerably in accuracy of text, and in the care which has
been taken to include only poems that are authentic. They
were made probably by professional copyists, and some of
those whose calligraphy is most attractive show that the scribe
must have paid the smallest attention to the meaning of what
he was writing.
Of those which I have examined, two groups of manuscripts
seem to me especially noteworthy, because both show that
their collectors had a clear idea of what were, and what were
not, Donne's poems, and because of the general accuracy with
which the poems in one of them are transcribed. Taken with
the edition of 1633 they form an invaluable starting-point for
the determination of the canon of Donne's poems.
The first of these is represented by three manuscripts which
I have examined, D (Dowden), H49 (Harleian MS. 4955), and
Lec (Leconfield).
D is a small quarto manuscript, neatly written in a thin, clear
hand and in ordinary script. It was formerly in the Haslewood
collection, and is now in the possession of Professor
Edward Dowden, Trinity College, Dublin, by whose kindness
I have had it by me almost all the time that I have been at
work on my edition.
H49 is a collection of Donne's poems, in the British Museum,
bound up with some by Ben Jonson and others. It is a large
folio written throughout apparently in the same hand. It
opens with some poems and masques by Jonson. A certain
Doctor Andrewes' poems occupy folios 57-87. They are
signed Franc: Andrilla. London August 14. 1629. Donne's
poems follow, filling folios 88 to 144b. Thereafter follow
more poems by Andrewes, Jonson, and others, with some prose
letters by Jonson.
Lec. This is a large quarto manuscript, beautifully transcribed,
belonging to Lord Leconfield and preserved at
Petworth House. Many of the manuscripts in this collection
were the property of Henry, ninth Earl of Northumberland
(1564-1632), the friend who communicated the news of
Donne's marriage to his father-in-law.
These three manuscripts are obviously derived from one
common source. They contain the same poems, except that
D has one more than H49, and both of these have some which
are not in Lec. The order of the poems is the same, except
that D and Lec show more signs of an attempt to group the
poems than H49. The text, with some divergences, especially
on the part of Lec, is identical. One instance seems to point
to one of them being the source of the others. In the
long Obsequies to the Ld. Harrington, Brother to the
Countess of Bedford, the original copyist, after beginning
l. 159 'Vertue whose flood', had inadvertently finished with
the second half of l. 161, 'were [sic] blowne in, by thy first
breath.' This error is found in all the three manuscripts.
It may, however, have come from the common source of this
poem, and there are divergences in order and text which make
me think that they are thus derived from one common source.
A special interest attaches to this collection, apart from the
relative excellence of its text and soundness of its canon, from
the probability that a manuscript of this kind was used for
a large, and that textually the best, part of the edition of 1633.
This becomes manifest on a close examination of the order of
the poems and of their text. Mr. Gosse has said, in speaking
of the edition of 1633: 'The poems are thrown together
without any attempt at intelligent order; neither date, nor
subject, nor relation is in the least regarded.' This is not
entirely the case. Satires, Elegies, Epigrams, Songs are
grouped to some extent. The disorder which prevails is due
to two causes: (1) to the fact that the printer set up from a
variety of sources. There was no previous collected edition
to guide him. Different friends supplied collections, and of
a few poems there were earlier editions. He seems to have
passed from one of these to another as was most convenient at
the moment. Perhaps some were lent him only for a time.
The differences between copies of 1633 show that it was
prepared carefully, but emended from time to time while the
printing was actually going on. (2) The second source of the
order of the poems is their order in the manuscripts from
which they were copied. Now a comparison of the order in
1633 with that in D, H49, Lec reveals a close
connexion
between them, and throws light on the composition of 1633.
It is necessary, before instituting this comparison with 1633,
to say a word on the order of the poems in D, H49, Lec
themselves, as it is not quite the same in all three. H49 is the
most irregular, perhaps therefore the earliest, each of the others
showing efforts to obtain a better grouping of the poems.
All three begin with the Satyres, of which D and Lec have
five, H49 only four; but the text of Lec differs from that of
the other two, agreeing more closely with the version of
1633 and of another group of manuscripts. They have all,
then, thirteen Elegies in the same order. After these H49
continues with a number of letters (The Storme, The Calme,
To Sr Henry Wotton, To Sr Henry Goodyere, To the
Countesse of Bedford, To Sr Edward Herbert, and others)
intermingled with Funeral Elegies (Lady Markham, Mris
Boulstred) and religious poems (The Crosse, The Annuntiation,
Good Friday). Then follows a long series of lyrical
pieces, broken after The Funerall by A Letter to the Lady
Carey, and Mrs. Essex Rich, the Epithalamion on the Palatine
marriage, and an Old Letter ('At once from hence', p. 206).
The lyrical pieces are then resumed, and the collection ends
with the Somerset Eclogue and Epithalamion, the Letanye,
both sets of Holy Sonnets, a letter (To the Countesse of
Salisbury), and the long Obsequies to the Ld. Harrington.
D makes an effort to arrange the poems following the
Elegies in groups. The Funeral Elegies come first, and two
blank pages are headed An Elegye on Prince Henry. The
letters are then brought together, and are followed by the
religious poems dispersed in H49. The lyrical poems follow
piece by piece as in H49, and the whole closes with the two
epithalamia and the Obsequies to the Ld. Harrington.
The order in Lec resembles that of H49 more closely than
that of D. The mixed letters, funeral elegies, and religious
poems follow the Elegies as in H49, but Lec adds to them
the
two letters (Lady Carey and The Countess of Salisbury) and
the Letanie which in H49 are dispersed through the lyrical
pieces. Lec does not contain any of the Holy Sonnets, but
after The Letanie ten pages are left blank, evidently intended
to receive them. Thereafter, the lyrical poems follow piece
by piece as in D, H49, except that The Prohibition ('Take
heed of loving mee') is omitted—a fact of some interest when
we come to consider 1633. Lec closes, like D, with the
epithalamia
and the Obsequies to the Lo: Harrington.
Turning now to 1633, we shall see that, whatever other
sources the editor of that edition used, one was a collection
identical with, or closely resembling, D, H49, Lec,
especially
Lec. That edition begins with the Progresse of the Soule,
which was not derived from this manuscript. Thereafter
follow the two sets of Holy Sonnets, the second set containing
exactly the same number of sonnets, and in the same order, as
in D, H49, whereas other manuscripts, e.g. B, O'F,
S, S96,
which will be described later, have more sonnets and in a
different order; and W, which agrees otherwise with B, O'F,
S, S96, adds three that are found nowhere else. The sonnets
are followed in 1633 by the Epigrams, which are not in D,
H49, Lec, but after that the resemblance of 1633 to
D, H49,
Lec becomes quite striking. These manuscripts, we have seen,
begin with the Satyres. The edition, however, passes on at
once to the Elegies. Of the thirteen given in D, H49,
Lec,
1633 prints eight, omitting the first (The Bracelet), the second
(Going to Bed), the tenth (Loves Warr), the eleventh (On
his Mistris), and the thirteenth (Loves Progresse). That the
editor, however, had before him, and intended to print, the
Satyres and the thirteen Elegies as he found them in his
copy0
of D, H49, Lec, is proved by the following extract which
Mr. Chambers quotes from the Stationers' Register:
John Marriot. Entered for his copy under the hands of Sir
Henry Herbert and both the Wardens, a book
of verse and poems (the five Satires, the first,
second, tenth, eleventh and thirteenth Elegies
being excepted) and these before excepted to
be his, when he brings lawful authority.
vid.
written by Doctor John Dunn
This note is intelligible only when compared with this
particular group of manuscripts. In others the order is
quite different.
This bar—which was probably dictated by reasons of propriety,
though it is difficult to see why the first and the eleventh
Elegies should have been singled out—was got over later as
far as the Satyres were concerned. They are printed after all
the other poems, just before the prose letters. But by this
time the copy of D, H49, Lec had perhaps passed out of
Marriot's hands, for the text of the Satyres seems to show that
they were printed, not from this manuscript, but from one
represented by another group, which I shall describe later.
This is, however, not quite certain, for in Lec the version of
the Satyres given is not the same as in D, H49, but is that
of
this second group of manuscripts. Several little details show
that of the three manuscripts D, H49, and Lec the last most
closely resembles 1633.
Following the Elegies in 1633 come a group of letters,
epicedes, and religious poems, just as in H49, Lec (D
re-groups
them)—The Storme, The Calme, To Sir Henry Wotton,
('Sir, more than kisses'), The Crosse, Elegie on the Lady
Marckham, Elegie on Mris Boulstred ('Death I recant'), To
Sr Henry Goodyere, To Mr. Rowland Woodward, To Sr
Henry Wootton ('Here's no more newes'), To the Countesse of
Bedford ('Reason is our Soules left hand'), To the Countesse
of Bedford ('Madam, you have refin'd'), To Sr Edward
Herbert, at Julyers. Here 1633 diverges. Having got into
letters to noble and other people the editor was anxious to
continue them, and accordingly from another source (which I
shall discuss later) he prints a long series of letters to the
Countess of Bedford, the Countess of Huntingdon, Mr. T. W.,
and other more intimate friends (they are 'thou', the Countesses
'you'), and Mrs. Herbert. He perhaps returns to D, H49,
Lec in those to The Lady Carey and Mrs. Essex Riche, from
Amyens, and To the Countesse of Salisbury; and, as in that
manuscript, the Palatine and Essex epithalamia (to which,
however, 1633 adds that written at Lincoln's Inn) are followed
immediately by the long Obsequies to Lord Harrington.
Three odd Elegies follow, two of which (The Autumnall
and The Picture, 'Image of her') occur in D, H49,
Lec in the
same detached fashion. Other manuscripts include them
among the numbered Elegies. The Elegie on Prince Henry,
Psalme 137 (probably not by Donne), Resurrection, imperfect,
An hymne to the Saints, and to Marquesse Hamilton, An
Epitaph upon Shakespeare (certainly not by Donne), Sapho
to Philaenis, follow in 1633—a queerly consorted lot. The
Elegie on Prince Henry is taken from the Lachrymae Lachrymarum
of Joshua Sylvester (1612); the rest were possibly
taken from some small commonplace-book. This would
account for the doubtful poems, the only doubtful poems in
1633. These past, the close connexion with our manuscript
is resumed. The Annuntiation is followed, as in H49, Lec,
by The Litanie. Thereafter the lyrical pieces begin, as in
these manuscripts, with the song, 'Send home my long strayd
eyes to me.' This is followed by two pieces which are not
in D, H49, Lec,—the impressive, difficult, and in
manuscripts
comparatively rare Nocturnall upon S. Lucies day, and the
much commoner Witchcraft by a picture. Thereafter the
poems follow piece by piece the order in D, H49, Lec18
until
The Curse is reached.19 Then, in what seems to have been
the editor's or printer's regular method of proceeding in this
edition, he laid aside the manuscript from which he was
printing the Songs and Sonets to take up another piece of
work that had come to hand, viz. An Anatomie of the World
with A Funerall Elegie and Of the Progresse of the Soule,
which he prints from the edition of 1625. Without apparent
rhyme or reason these long poems are packed in between The
Curse and The Extasie. With the latter poem 1633 resumes the
songs and (with the exception of The Undertaking) follows the
order in Lec to The Dampe, with which the series in the
manuscripts
closes. It has been noted that in Lec, The Prohibition
(which in D, H49 follows Breake of day and precedes The
Anniversarie) is omitted. This must have been the case in the
manuscript used for 1633, for it is omitted at this place and
though printed later was probably not derived from this
source.
With The Dampe the manuscript which I am supposing
the editor to have followed in the main probably came to an
end. The poems which follow in 1633 are of a miscellaneous
character and strangely conjoined. The Dissolution (p. 64),
A Ieat Ring sent (p. 65), Negative Love (p. 66),
The Prohibition (p. 67), The Expiration (p. 68),
The Computation (p. 69),
complete the tale of lyrics. A few odd elegies follow
('Language thou art,' 'You that are she,' 'To make the doubt
clear') with The Paradox. A Hymne to Christ, at the
Authors last going into Germany is given a page to itself,
and is followed by The Lamentations of Jeremy, The
Satyres, and A Hymne to God the Father. Thereafter come
the prose letters and the Elegies upon the Author.
What this comparison of the order of the poems points to
is borne out by an examination of the text. The critical notes
afford the materials for a further verification, and I need not
tabulate the resemblances at length. In Elegie IV, for
example, ll. 7, 8, which occur in all the other manuscripts
and editions, are omitted by 1633 and by D, H49,
Lec.
Again, when a song has no title in 1633 it has frequently none
in the manuscript. When there are evidently two versions of
a poem, as e.g. in The Good-morrow and The Flea, the
version given in 1633 is generally that of D, H49,
Lec.
Later editions often contaminate this with another version of
the poem. At the same time there are ever and again
divergences between the edition and the manuscript which are
not to be ignored, and cannot always be explained. Some
are due to error in one or the other, but some point either to
divergence between the text of the editor's manuscript and
ours, or to the use by the editor of other sources as well as this.
In the fifth elegy (The Picture), for example, 1633 twice seems
to follow, not D, H49, Lec, but another source, another
group of
manuscripts which has been preserved; and in The Aniversarie
ll. 23, 24, the version of 1633 is not that of D, H49,
Lec but of
the same second group, which will be described later. On the
whole, however, it is clear that a manuscript closely resembling
that now represented by these three manuscripts supplied the
editor of 1633 with the bulk of the shorter poems, especially
the older and more privately circulated poems, the Songs and
Sonets and Elegies. When he is not following this manuscript
he draws from miscellaneous and occasionally inferior
sources.
It would be interesting if we could tell whence this manuscript
was obtained, and whether it was a priori likely to be
a good one. On this point we can only conjecture, but it
seems to me a fairly tenable conjecture (though not to be built
on in any way) that the nucleus of the collection, at any rate,
may have been a commonplace-book which had belonged to
Sir Henry Goodyere. The ground for this conjecture is the
inclusion in the edition of some prose letters addressed to
this friend, one in Latin and seven in English. There is
indeed also one addressed to the Countess of Bedford; but in
the preceding letter to Goodyere Donne says, 'I send you,
with this, a letter which I sent to the Countesse. It is
not my use nor duty to do so. But for your having it, there
were but two consents, and I am sure you have mine, and you
are sure you have hers.' He goes on to refer to some verses
which are the subject of the letter to the Countesse. There
can be no doubt that the letter printed is the letter sent to
Goodyere. The Burley MS. (see Pearsall-Smith's Life and
Letters of Sir Henry Wotton, Oxford, 1907) gives us a good
example of how a gentleman in the seventeenth century dealt
with his correspondence. That contains, besides various letters,
as of Sidney to Queen Elizabeth on the Anjou marriage, and
other matter which recurs in commonplace-books, a number of
poems and letters, sent to Wotton by his friends, including
Donne, and transcribed by one or other of Wotton's secretaries.
The letters have no signatures appended, which is the case
with the letters in the 1633 edition of Donne's poems.
Wotton and Goodyere did not need to be reminded of the
authors, and perhaps did not wish others to know. The
reason then for the rather odd inclusion of nine prose letters
in a collection of poems is probably, that the principal manuscript
used by the printer was an 'old book'20 which had
belonged to Sir Henry Goodyere and in which his secretaries
had transcribed poems and letters by Donne. Goodyere's
collection of Donne's poems would not necessarily be
exhaustive, but it would be full; it would not like the
collections of others include poems that were none of
Donne's; and its text would be accurate, allowing for the
carelessness, indifference, and misunderstandings of secretaries
and copyists.
After D, H49, Lec, the most carefully made collection of
Donne's poems is one represented now by four distinct manuscripts:
A18. Additional MS. 18646, in the British Museum.
N. The Norton MS. in Harvard College Library, Boston, of
which an account is given by Professor Norton in a note
appended to the Grolier Club edition.
TCC. A manuscript in the Library of Trinity College,
Cambridge.
TCD. A large manuscript in the Library of Trinity
College, Dublin, containing two apparently quite independent
collections of poems—the first a collection of Donne's poems
with one or two additional poems by Sir John Roe, Francis
Beaumont, Sir Thomas Overbury, and Corbet; the second
a quite miscellaneous collection, put together some time in the
thirties of the seventeenth century, and including some of
Donne's poems. It is only the first of these which belongs to
the group in question.
These four manuscripts are closely connected with one
another, but a still more intimate relation exists between A18
and TCC on the one hand, N and TCD on the other.
N and TCD are the larger collections; A18 and TCC
contain each a smaller selection from the same body of poems.
Indeed it would seem that N is a copy of TCD, A18 of
TCC.
TCD, to start with it, is a beautifully written collection
of Donne's poems beginning with the Satyres, passing on to
an irregularly arranged series of elegies, letters, lyrics and
epicedes, and closing with the Metempsychosis or Progresse
of the Soule and the Divine Poems, which include the hymns
written in the last years of the poet's life. N has the same
poems, arranged in the same order, and its readings are nearly
always identical with those of TCD, so far as I can judge
from the collation made for me. The handwriting, unlike
that of TCD, is in what is known as secretary hand and is
somewhat difficult to read. What points to the one manuscript
being a copy of the other is that in 'Sweetest Love,
I do not go' the scribe has accidentally dropped stanza 4,
by giving its last line to stanza 3, and passing at once to
the fifth stanza. Both manuscripts make this mistake, whereas
A18 and TCC contain the complete poem. In other places
N and TCD agree in their readings where A18 and TCC
diverge. If the one is a copy of the other, TCD is
probably the more authoritative, as it contains some marginal
indications of authorship which N omits.
TCC is a smaller manuscript than TCD, but seems to be
written in the same clear, fine hand. It does not contain the
Satyres, the Elegy (XI. in this edition) The Bracelet, and the
epistles The Storme and The Calme, with which N and
TCD
open. It looks, however, as though the sheets containing
these poems had been torn out. Besides these, however,
TCC omits, without any indication of their being lost, an
Elegie to the Lady Bedford ('You that are she'), the Palatine
Epithalamion, a long series of letters21 which in N, TCD
follow that To M.M.H. and precede Sapho to Philaenis,
the elegies on Prince Henry and on Lord Harington, and The
Lamentations of Jeremy. There are occasional differences
in the grouping of the poems; and TCC does not contain
some poems by Beaumont, Corbet, Sir John Roe, and Sir
Thomas Overbury which are found in N and TCD. In TCD
these, with the exception of that by Beaumont, are carefully
initialled, and therefore not ascribed to Donne. In N these
initials are in some cases omitted; and some of the poems have
found their way into editions of Donne's poems.
Presumably TCC is the earlier collection, and when TCD
was made, the copyist was able to add fresh poems. It is clear,
however, that in the case of even those poems which the two
have in common, the one manuscript is not simply a copy of
the others. There are several divergences, and the mistake
referred to above, in 'Sweetest Love, I do not go', is not made
in TCC. Strangely enough, a similar mistake is made by
TCC in transcribing Loves Deitie and is reproduced in A18.
A18, indeed, would seem to be a copy of TCC. It is not
in the same handwriting, but in secretary hand. It omits the
opening Satyres, &c., as does TCC, but there is no sign of
excision. Presumably, then, the copy was made after these
poems were, if they ever were, torn out of TCC. Wherever
TCC diverges from TCD, A18 follows TCC.22
Whoever was responsible for this collection of Donne's
poems, it was evidently made with care, at least as regards
the canon. Very few poems that are not certainly by
Donne are included, and they are correctly initialled. The
only uninitialled doubtful poems are A Paradox, 'Whoso
terms Love a fire,' which in all the four manuscripts follows
'No Lover saith, I love', and Beaumont's letter to the Countess
of Bedford, which begins, 'Soe may my verses pleasing be.'
In N, TCD this follows Donne's letter to the same lady, 'You
that are she and you.' It is regrettable that the text of the
poems is not so good as the canon is pure. The punctuation
is careless. There are numerous stupid blunders, and there
are evidences of editing in the interest of more regular metre
or a more obvious meaning. At times, however, it would seem
that the copyist is following a different version of a poem or
poems (e.g. the Satyres) from that given in D, H49, and
other manuscripts, and is embodying corrections perhaps
made by the author himself. It is quite credible that Donne,
in sending copies of his poems at different times to different
people, may have revised and amended them. It is quite clear,
as my notes will show, that of certain poems more than one
version (each correct in itself) was in circulation.
Was A18, N, TC, or a manuscript resembling it one of the
sources of the edition of 1633? In part, I think, it was. The
most probable case at first sight is that of the Satyres. These,
we have seen, Marriot was at first prohibited from printing.
Otherwise they would have followed the Epigrams, and immediately
preceded the Elegies. As it is, they come after all
the other poems; they are edited with some cautious dashes;
and their text is almost identical with that of N, TCD. In
the first satire the only difference between 1633 and N,
TCD
occurs in l. 70, where N, TCD, with all the other manuscripts
read—
Sells for a little state his libertie;
1633,
Sells for a little state high libertie;
'high' is either a slip or an editorial emendation. There are
other cases of similar editing, not all of which it is possible to
correct with confidence; but a study of the textual notes will
show that in general 1633 follows the version preserved in
N, TCD, and also in L74 (of which later), when the rest of
the manuscripts present an interestingly different text. But
strangely enough this version of the Satyres is also in Lec.
This is the feature in which that manuscript diverges most
strikingly from D and H49. Moreover in some details in
which 1633 differs from A18, N, TC it agrees with Lec. It
is possible therefore that the Satyres were printed from the same
manuscript as the majority of the poems.
Again in the Letters not found in D, H49, Lec there
is a close but not invariable agreement between the text of 1633
and that of this group of manuscripts. Those letters, which
follow that To Sir Edward Herbert, are printed in 1633 in
the same order as in this edition (pp. 195-226), except that the
group of short letters beginning at p. 203 ('All haile sweete
Poet') is here amplified and rearranged from W. Now in A18,
N, TC these letters are also brought together (N,
TCD adding
some which are not in A18, TCC), and the special group
referred to, of letters to intimate friends, are arranged in
exactly the same order as in 1633; have the same headings,
the same omissions, and the same accidental linking of two
poems. In the other letters, to the Countesses of Bedford,
Huntingdon, Salisbury, &c., the textual notes will show some
striking resemblances between the edition and the manuscripts.
In the difficult letter, 'T'have written then' (p. 195), 1633
follows N, TCD where O'F gives a different and in some
details more correct text. In 'This twilight of two yeares'
(p. 198) the strange reading of l. 35, 'a prayer prayes,' is
obviously due to N, TCD, where 'a praiser prayes' has
accidentally but explicably been written 'a prayer praise'.
In the letter To the Countesse of Huntingdon (p. 201) the
1633 version of ll. 25, 26 is a correct rendering of what N,
TCD
give wrongly:
Shee guilded us, But you are Gold; and shee
Vs inform'd, but transubstantiates you.
On the other hand there are some differences, as e.g. in the
placing of ll. 40-2 in 'Honour is so sublime' (p. 218), which
make it impossible to affirm that these poems were taken
direct from this group of manuscripts as we know them, without
alteration or emendation. The Progresse of the Soule or
Metempsychosis, as printed in 1633, must have been taken in
the first instance from this manuscript. In both the manuscripts
and the edition, at l. 83 of the poem a blank space is left after
'did'; in both, l. 137 reads, 'To see the Prince, and soe fill'd
the waye'; in both, 'kinde' is substituted for 'kindle' at l. 150;
in l. 180 the 'uncloth'd child' of 1633 is explicable as an
emendation of the 'encloth'd' of A18, N, TC; and similarly
the 'leagues o'rpast', l. 296 of 1633, is probably due to the
omission of 'many' before 'leagues' in A18, N,
TC—'o'rpast'
supplies the lost foot. It is clear, however, from a comparison
of different copies that as 1633 passed through the press this
poem underwent considerable correction and alteration; and
in its final printed form there are errors which I have been
enabled to correct from G.
The paraphrase of Lamentations, and the Epithalamion
made at Lincolns Inn (which is not in D, H49, Lec) are
other poems which show, in passages where there are divergent
readings, a tendency to follow the readings of A18, N,
TC, though in neither of these poems is the identity complete.
It is further noteworthy that to several poems unnamed in
D, H49, Lec the editor of 1633 has given the title
which these
bear in A18, N, TCC, and TCD, as though he had
access to
both the collections at the same time.
These two groups of manuscripts, which have come down
to us, thus seem to represent the two principal sources of the
edition of 1633. What other poems that edition contains were
derived either from previously printed editions (The Anniversaries
and the Elegy on Prince Henry) or were got from
more miscellaneous and less trustworthy sources.
A third manuscript collection of Donne's poems is of
interest because it seems very probable that it or a similar
collection came into the hands of the printer before the second
edition of 1635 was issued. A considerable number of the
errors, or inferior readings, of the later editions seem to be
traceable to its influence. At least it is remarkable how often
when 1635 and the subsequent editions depart from 1633 and
the general tradition of the manuscripts they have the support
of this manuscript and this manuscript alone. This is the
manuscript which I have called
O'F, because it was at one time in the possession of the
Rev. T. R. O'Flaherty, of Capel, near Dorking, a great student
of Donne, and a collector. He contributed several notes on
Donne to Notes and Queries. I do not know of any more
extensive work by him on the subject.
This manuscript has been already described by Mr. R.
Warwick Bond in the Catalogue of Ellis and Elvey, 1903. It
is a large but somewhat indiscriminate collection, made
apparently with a view to publication. The title-page states
that it contains 'The Poems of D. J. Donne (not yet imprinted)
consisting of
| Divine Poems, beginning Pag. |
1 |
| Satyres |
57 |
| Elegies |
113 |
| Epicedes and Obsequies |
161 |
| Letters to severall personages |
189 |
| Songs and Sonnets |
245 |
| Epithalamions |
317 |
| Epigrams |
337 |
| With his paradoxes and problems |
421 |
| finished this 12 of October 1632.' |
|
The reader will notice how far this arrangement agrees with,
how far it differs from, that adopted in 1635.
Of the twenty-eight new poems, genuine, doubtful, and
spurious, added in 1635, this manuscript contains twenty,
a larger number than I have found in any other single manuscript.
An examination of the text of these does not, however,
make it certain that all of them were derived from this source
or from this source only. The text, for example, of the Elegie
XI. The Bracelet, in 1635, is evidently taken from a manuscript
differing in important respects from O'F and resembling
closely Cy and P. Elegie XII, also, His parting from
her,
can hardly have been derived from O'F, as 1635 gives an
incomplete, O'F has an entire, version of the poem. In others,
however, e.g. Elegie XIII. Julia; Elegie XVI. On his
Mistris; Satyre, 'Men write that love and reason disagree,' it
will be seen that the text of 1635 agrees more closely with
O'F than with any of the other manuscripts cited. The
second of these, On his Mistris, is a notable case, and so are
the four Divine Sonnets added in 1635. Most striking of all
is the case of the Song, probably not by Donne, 'Soules joy
now I am gone,' where the absurd readings 'Words' for
'Wounds' and 'hopes joyning' for 'lipp-joyning' (or perhaps
'lipps-joyning') must have come from this source. One can
hardly believe that two independent manuscripts would
perpetrate two such blunders. Taken with the many changes
from the text of 1633 in which 1635 has the support of O'F,
one can hardly doubt that among the fresh manuscript
collections which came into the hands of the printer of 1635
(often only to mislead him) O'F was one.
Besides the twenty poems which passed into 1635, O'F
attributes some eighteen other poems to Donne, of which few
are probably genuine.23 Of the other manuscript collections
I must speak more shortly. There is no evidence that any of
them was used by the seventeenth-century editors.
B is a handsome, vellum-bound manuscript belonging to
the Earl of Ellesmere's library at Bridgewater House. I am,
I think, the first editor who has examined it. The volume
bears on the fly-leaf the autograph signature ('J. Bridgewater')
of the first Earl of Bridgewater, the son of Donne's early
patron, Elizabeth's Lord Keeper and later Lord Chancellor. On
the title-page 'Dr Donne' is written in the same hand. John
Egerton, it will be remembered, was, like Donne, a volunteer in
Essex's expedition to the Azores in 1597. In 1599 he and
his elder brother Thomas were in Ireland, where the latter was
killed, leaving John to be his father's heir. The book-number,
inscribed on the second leaf, is in the handwriting of the
second Earl of Bridgewater, the Elder Brother of Milton's
Comus. The manuscript has thus interesting associations,
and links with Donne's earliest patron. I had hoped that it
might prove, being made for those who had known Donne all
his life, an exceptionally good manuscript, but can hardly say
that my expectations were fulfilled. It was probably put
together in the twenties, because though it contains the Holy
Sonnets it does not contain the hymns written at the close of
the poet's life. It resembles O'F, S, S96, and P,
rather than
either of the first two collections which I have described, D,
H49, Lec and A18, N, TC, in that it includes
with Donne's
poems a number of poems not by Donne,24 but most of them
apparently by his contemporaries, Sir John Roe, Francis
Beaumont, Jonson, and other of the wits of the first decade of
the seventeenth century, the men who collaborated in writing
witty poems on Coryat, or Characters in the style of Sir
Thomas Overbury. In the case of some of these initials are
added, and a later, but not modern, hand has gone over the
manuscript and denied or queried Donne's authorship of others.
Textually also B tends to range itself, especially in certain
groups of poems, as the Satyres and Holy Sonnets, with O'F,
S96, W when these differ from D, H49, Lec and
A18, N, TC.
In such cases the tradition which it represents is most correctly
preserved in W. In a few poems the text of B is identical
with that of S96. On the whole B cannot be accepted in any
degree as an independent authority for the text. It is important
only for its agreements with other manuscripts, as
helping to establish what I may call the manuscript tradition,
in various passages, as against the text of the editions.
Still less valuable as an independent textual authority is
P. This manuscript is a striking example of the kind of
collections of poems, circulating in manuscript, which gentlemen
in the seventeenth century caused to be prepared, and
one cannot help wondering how they managed to understand
the poems, so full is the text of gross and palpable errors.
P is a small octavo manuscript, once in the Phillipps collection,
now in the possession of Captain C. Shirley Harris, Oxford.
On the cover of brown leather is stamped the royal arms of
James I. On p. 1 is written, '1623 me possidet Hen. Champernowne
de Dartington in Devonia, generosus.' Two other
members of this old, and still extant, Devonshire family have
owned the volume, as also Sir Edward Seymour (Knight
Baronett) and Bridgett Brookbrige. The poems are written
in a small, clear hand, and in Elizabethan character. Captain
Harris has had a careful transcript of the poems made, and
he allowed me after collating the original with the transcript
to keep the latter by me for a long time.
The collection is in the nature of a commonplace-book, and
includes a prose letter to Raleigh, and a good many poems
by other poets than Donne, but the bulk of the volume is
occupied with his poems,25 and most of the poems are signed
'J. D. Finis.' The date of the collection is between 1619,
when the poem When he went with the Lo Doncaster was
written, and 1623, the date on the title-page. Neither for text
nor for canon is P an authority, but the very carelessness with
which it is written makes its testimony to certain readings
indisputable. It makes no suggestion of conscious editing.
In certain poems its text is identical with that of Cy, even to
absurd errors. It sometimes, however, supports readings
which are otherwise confined to O'F and the later editions of
the poem, showing that these may be older than 1632-5.
Cy. The Carnaby MS. consists of one hundred folio
pages bound in flexible vellum, and is now in the Harvard
College Library, Boston. It is by no means an exhaustive
collection; the poems are chaotically arranged; the text
seems to be careless, and the spelling unusually erratic; but
most of the poems it contains are genuine.26 This manuscript
is not as a whole identical with P, but some of the
poems it contains must have come from that or from a common
source.
JC. The John Cave MS. is a small collection of Donne's
poems now in the possession of Mr. Elkin Matthews,
who has kindly allowed me to collate it. It was formerly in
Mr. O'Flaherty's possession. The original possessor had been
a certain John Cave, and the volume opens with the following
poem, written, it will be seen, while Donne was still alive:
Oh how it joys me that this quick brain'd Age
can nere reach thee (Donn) though it should engage
at once all its whole stock of witt to finde
out of thy well plac'd words thy more pure minde.
Noe, wee are bastard Aeglets all; our eyes
could not endure the splendor that would rise
from hence like rays from out a cloud. That Man
who first found out the Perspective which can
make starrs at midday plainly seen, did more
then could the whole Chaos of Arte〈s〉 before
or since; If I might have my wish 't shuld bee
That Man might be reviv'd againe to see
If hee could such another frame, whereby
the minde might bee made see as farr as th' eye.
Then might we hope to finde thy sense, till then
The Age of Ignorance I'le still condemn.
IO. CA.
Jun. 3. 1620.
The manuscript is divided into three parts, the first containing
the five Satyres, the Litany and the Storme and
Calme.
The second consists of Elegies and Epigrammes and the third
of Miscellanea, Poems, Elegies, Sonnets by the same Author.
The elegies in the second part are, as in D, H49, Lec, and
W,
thirteen in number. Their arrangement is that of W, and,
like W, JC gives The Comparison, which, D,
H49, Lec do not,
but drops Loves Progress, which the latter group contains.
The text of these poems is generally that of W, but here
and throughout JC abounds in errors and emendations. It
contains one or two poems which were published in the
edition of 1650, and which I have found in no other manuscript
except O'F. In these JC supplies some obvious
emendations. The poems in the third part are very irregularly
arranged. This is the only manuscript, professing to be
of Donne's poems, which contains the elegy, 'The heavens
rejoice in motion,' which the younger Donne added to the
edition of 1650. It is not a very correct, but is an interesting
manuscript, with very few spurious poems. At the other end
of the manuscript from Donne's, are poems by Corbet.
What seems to be practically a duplicate of JC is preserved
in the Dyce Collection at the South Kensington Museum. It
belonged originally to a certain 'Johannes Nedlam e Collegio
Lincolniense' and is dated 1625. Cave's poem 'Upon
Doctor Donne's Satyres' is inscribed and the contents and
arrangement of the volume are identical with those of JC
except that one poem, The Dampe, is omitted, probably by
an oversight, in the Dyce MS. After my experience
of JC I did not think it necessary to collate this manuscript.
It was from it that Waldron printed some of the unpublished
poems of Donne and Corbet in A Collection of Miscellaneous
Poetry (1802).
H40 and RP31, i.e. Harleian MS. 4064 in the British
Museum, and Rawlinson Poetical MS. 31, in the Bodleian
Library, are two manuscripts containing a fairly large number
of Donne's poems intermingled with poems by other and
contemporary authors. A note on the fly-leaf of RP31
declares that the manuscript contains 'Sir John Harringtons
poems written in the Reign of Queen Elizabeth', which is
certainly not an accurate description.27 Some of the poems
must have been written as late as 1610, and they are by
various authors, Wotton, Jonson, Sir Edward Herbert,
Sir John Roe, Donne, Beaumont, and probably others, but
names of authors are only occasionally given. Each manuscript
starts with the words 'Prolegomena Quaedam', and the
poem, 'Paynter while there thou sit'st.' The poems follow
the same order in the two manuscripts, but of poems not by
Donne RP31 contains several which are not in H40, and, on
the other hand, of poems by Donne H40 inserts at various
places quite a number, especially of songs, which are not in
RP31. The latter is, in short, a miscellaneous collection of
Elizabethan and early Jacobean poems, including several of
Donne's; the former, the same collection in which Donne's
poems have become by insertion the principal feature.
I have cited the readings of H40 throughout; those of RP31
only when they differ from H40, or when I wish to emphasize
their agreement. Wherever derived from, the poems are
generally carefully and intelligently transcribed. They
contain some unpublished poems of Jonson, Sir Edward
Herbert, and probably Daniel.
L74. The Lansdowne MS. 740, in the British Museum, is an
interesting collection of Donne's mainly earlier and secular
poems, along with several by contemporaries.28 The text of
the Satyres connects this collection with A18, N,
TC, but it is
probably older, as it contains none of the Divine Poems and
no poem written later than 1610. Its interest, apart from the
support which it lends to the readings of other manuscripts,
centres in the evidence it affords as to the authorship of some
of the unauthentic poems which have been ascribed to Donne.
S. The Stephens MS., now in the Harvard College Library,
Boston, is the manuscript on which Dr. Grosart based his
edition (though he does not reproduce it either consistently or
with invariable accuracy) in 1873—an unhappy choice even
were it legitimate to adopt any single manuscript in preference
to the edition of 1633. Of all the manuscripts I have examined
(I know it only through the collation made for me
and from Dr. Grosart's citations) it is, I think, without exception
the worst, the fullest of obvious and absurd blunders.
There are too in it more evidences of stupid editing than in P,
whose blunders are due to careless copying by eye or to
dictation, and therefore more easy to correct.
The manuscript is dated, at the end, '19th July 1620,' and
contains no poems which are demonstrably later than this date,
or indeed than 1610. As, however, it contains several of the
Divine Poems, including La Corona, but not the Holy
Sonnets, it affords a valuable clue to the date of these poems,—of
which more elsewhere. The collection is an ambitious
one, and an attempt has been made at classification. Six
Satires are followed by twenty-seven Elegies (one is torn out)
under which head love and funeral elegies are included, and
these by a long series of songs with the Divine Poems interspersed.
Some of the songs, as of the elegies, are not by
Donne.29
S96. Stowe MS. 961 is a small folio volume in the British
Museum, containing a collection of Donne's poems very neatly
and prettily transcribed. It cannot have been made before
1630 as it contains all the three hymns written during the
poet's last illnesses. Indeed it is the only manuscript which
I have found containing a copy of the Hymne to God, my
God in my Sicknes. It is a very miscellaneous collection.
Three satires are followed by the long obsequies to the Lord
Harington, and these by a sequence of Letters, Funeral
Elegies, Elegies, and Songs intermingled. It is regrettable
that so well-written a manuscript is not more reliable, but its
text is poor, its titles sometimes erroneous, and its ascriptions
inaccurate.30
(3) In the third class I place manuscripts which are not
primarily collections of Donne's poems but collections of
seventeenth-century poems among which Donne's are included.
It is not easy to draw a hard and fast line between this class
and the last because, as has been seen, most of the manuscripts
at the end of the last list contain poems which are not, or
probably are not, by Donne. Still, in these collections Donne's
work predominates, and the tendency of the collector is to
bring the other poems under his aegis. Initials like J. R.,
F. B., J. H. disappear, or J. D. takes their place. In the case
of these last collections this is not so. Poems by Donne are
included with poems which the collector assigns to other wits.
Obviously this class could be made to include many different
kinds of collections, ranging from those in which Donne is
a prominent figure to those which include only one or two of
his poems. But such manuscripts have comparatively little
value and no authority for the textual critic, though they are
not without importance for the student of the canon of Donne's
poetry. I shall mention only one or two, though I have
examined a good many more.
A25. Additional MS. 25707, in the British Museum, is a large
and interesting collection, written in several different hands, of
early seventeenth-century poems, Jacobean and Caroline. It
contains an Elegie by Henry Skipwith on the death of King
Charles I, but most of the poems are early Jacobean, and either
the bulk of the collection was made before this and some other
poems were inserted, or it is derived from older collections.
Indeed, most of the poems by Donne were probably got from
some older collection or collections not unlike some of those
already described. They consist of twelve elegies arranged in
the same order as in JC, W, and to some extent O'F, which
is not the order of D, H49, Lec and 1633; a number of
Songs with some Letters and Obsequies following one another sometimes
in batches, at times interspersed with poems by other writers;
the five Satyres, separated from the other poems and showing
some evidences in the text of deriving from a collection like Q
or its duplicate in the Dyce collection.31 The only one of the
Divine Poems which A25 contains is The Crosse. No poem
which can be proved to have been written later than 1610 is
included.
The poems by Donne in this manuscript are generally, but
not always, initialled J. D., and are thus distinguished from
others by F. B., H. K., N. H., H. W., Sr H. G., T. P., T. G.,
G. Lucy., No. B., &c. The care with which this has been done
lends interest to those poems which are here ascribed to
Donne but are not elsewhere assigned to him. A25 (with its
partial duplicate C) is the only manuscript which attributes to
'J. D.' the Psalm, 'By Euphrates flowery side,' that was printed
in 1633 and all the subsequent editions.32
C. A strange duplicate of certain parts of A25 is a small
manuscript in the Cambridge University Library belonging to
the Baumgartner collection. It is a thin folio, much damaged by
damp, and scribbled over. A long poem, In cladem Rheensen
('Verses upon the slaughter at the Isle of Rhees'), has been used
by the cataloguer to date the manuscript, but as this has
evidently been inserted when the whole was bound, the rest of the
contents may be older or younger. The collection opens with
three of the Elegies contained in A25. It then omits eleven
poems which are in A25, and continues with twenty Songs and
Obsequies, following the order of A25 but omitting the intervening
poems. Some nine more poems are given, following
the order of A25, but many are omitted in C which are found
in A25, and the poems in C are often only fragments of the
whole poems in A25. Evidently C is a selection of poems
either made directly from A25, or from the collection of
Donne's poems (with one or two by Beaumont and others)
which A25 itself drew from.
A10. Additional MS. 10309, in the British Museum, is a
little octavo volume which was once the property of Margaret
Bellasis, probably the eldest daughter of Thomas, first Lord
Fauconberg. It is a very miscellaneous collection of prose
(Hall's Characterismes of Vice) and verse. Of Donne's
undoubted poems there are very few, but there is an interesting
group of poems by Roe or others (the authors are not named
in the manuscript) which are frequently found with Donne's,
and some of which have been printed as his.33
M. This is a manuscript bought by Lord Houghton and
now in the library of the Marquis of Crewe. It is entitled
A Collection of
Original Poetry
written about the time of
Ben: Jonson
qui ob. 1637
A later hand, probably Sir John Simeon's, has added 'Chiefly
in the Autograph of Dr. Donne Dean of St. Pauls', but this is
quite erroneous. It is a miscellaneous collection of poems by
Donne, Jonson, Pembroke, Shirley, and others, with short
extracts from Fletcher and Shakespeare. Donne's are the
most numerous, and their text generally good, but such a
collection can have no authority. It is important only as
supporting readings and ascriptions of other manuscripts. I
cite it seldom.
TCD (Second Collection).34 The large manuscript volume in
Trinity College, Dublin, contains two collections of poems
(though editors have spoken of them as one) of very different
character and value. The first I have already described. It
occupies folios 1 to 292. On folio 293 a new hand begins
with the song, 'Victorious Beauty though your eyes,' and from
that folio to folio 565 (but some folios are torn out) follows a
long and miscellaneous series of early seventeenth-century
poems. There are numerous references to Buckingham, but
none to the Long Parliament or the events which followed, so
that the collection was probably put together before 1640.
The poems are ascribed to different authors in a very haphazard
and untrustworthy fashion. James I is credited with Jonson's
epigram on the Union of the Crowns; Donne's The Baite is
given to Wotton; and Wotton's 'O Faithless World' to Robert
Wisedom. Probably there is more reliance to be put on the
ascriptions of later and Caroline poems, but for the student of
Donne and early Jacobean poetry the collection has no value.
Some of Donne's poems occur, and it is noteworthy that the
version given is often a different one from that occurring in the
first part of the volume. Probably two distinct collections
have been bound up together.
Another collection frequently cited by Grosart, but of little
value for the editor of Donne, is the Farmer-Chetham MS.,
a commonplace-book in the Chetham Library, Manchester,
which has been published by Grosart. It contains one or two
of Donne's poems, but its most interesting contents are the
'Gulling Sonnets' of Sir John Davies, and some poems by
Raleigh, Hoskins, and others. Nothing could be more unsafe
than to ascribe poems to Donne, as Grosart did, because they
occur here in conjunction with some that are certainly his.
A similar collection, which I have not seen, is the Hazlewood-Kingsborough
MS., as Dr. Grosart called it. To judge from
the analysis in Thorpe's Catalogue, 1831, this too is a miscellaneous
anthology of poems written by, or at any rate
ascribed to, Shakespeare, Jonson, Bacon, Raleigh, Donne, and
others. There is no end to the number of such collections,
and it is absurd to base a text upon them.
The Burley MS., to which I refer once or twice, and which
is a manuscript of great importance for the editor of Donne's
letters, is not a collection of poems. It is a commonplace-book
of Sir Henry Wotton's in the handwriting of his secretaries.
Amid its varied contents are some letters, unsigned
but indubitably by Donne; ten of his Paradoxes with a
covering letter; and a few poems of Donne's with other poems.
Of the last, one is certainly by Donne (H. W. in Hibernia
belligeranti), and I have incorporated it. The others seem to
me exceedingly doubtful. They are probably the work of
other wits among Wotton's friends. I have printed a selection
from them in Appendix C.35
Of the manuscripts of the first two classes, which alone could
put forward any claim to be treated as independent sources of
the text of an edition of Donne's poems, it would be impossible,
I think, to construct a complete genealogy. Different poems,
or different groups of poems in the same manuscript, come
from different sources, and to trace each stream to its fountain-head
would be a difficult task, perhaps impossible without
further material, and would in the end hardly repay the trouble,
for the difficulties in Donne's text are not of so insoluble
a character as to demand such heroic methods. The interval
between the composition of the poems and their first publication
ranges from about forty years at the most to a year or
two. There is no case here of groping one's way back through
centuries of transmission. The surprising fact is rather that so
many of the common errors of a text preserved and transmitted
in manuscript should have appeared so soon, that the text and
canon of Donne's poems should present an editor in one form
or another with all the chief problems which confront the
editor of a classical or a mediaeval author.
The manuscripts fall into three main groups (1) D, H49,
Lec. These with a portion of 1633 come from a common
source. (2) A18, N, TCC, TCD. These also come from
a single stream and some parts of 1633 follow them. L74 is
closely connected with them, at least in parts. (3) A25, B,
Cy, JC, O'F, P, S, S96, W.
These cannot be traced in their
entirety to a single head, but in certain groups of poems they
tend to follow a common tradition which may or may not be
that of one or other of the first two groups. Of the Elegies,
for example, A25, JC, O'F and W transcribe twelve in
the same
order and with much the same text. Again, B, O'F, S96, and
W have taken the Holy Sonnets from a common source, but
O'F has corrected or altered its readings by a reference to a
manuscript resembling D, H49, Lec, while W has a
more correct
version than the others of the common tradition, and three
sonnets which none of these include. Generally, whenever
B, O'F, S96, and W derive from the same source,
W is much
the most reliable witness.
Indeed, our first two groups and W have the appearance of
being derived from some authoritative source, from manuscripts
in the possession of members of Donne's circle. All the others
suggest, by the headings they give to occasional poems, their
misunderstanding of the true character of some poems, their
erroneous ascriptions of poems, that they are the work of
amateurs to whom Donne was not known, or who belonged to
a generation that knew Donne as a divine, only vaguely as
a wit.
These being the materials at our command, the question is,
how are we to use them to secure as accurate a text as possible
of Donne's poems, to get back as close as may be to what the
poet wrote himself. The answer is fairly obvious, though it
could not be so until some effort had been made to survey the
manuscript material as a whole.
Of the three most recent editors—the first to attempt to
obtain a true text—of Donne's poems, each has pursued a
different plan. The late Dr. Grosart36 proceeded on a principle
which makes it exceedingly difficult to determine accurately
what is the source of, or authority for, any particular reading
he adopted. He printed now from one manuscript, now from
another, but corrected the errors of the manuscript by one or
other of the editions, most often by that of 1669. He made
no estimate of the relative value of either manuscripts or
editions, nor used them in any systematic fashion.
The Grolier Club edition37 was constructed on a different
principle. For all those poems which 1633 contains, that
edition was accepted as the basis; for other poems, the first
edition, whichever that might be. The text of 1633 is reproduced
very closely, even when the editor leans to the acceptance
of a later reading as correct. Only one or two corrections are
actually incorporated in the text. But the punctuation has
been freely altered throughout, and no record of these changes
is preserved in the textual notes even when they affect the
sense. In more than one instance the words of 1633 are
retained in this edition but are made to convey a different
meaning from that which they bear in the original.
The edition of Donne's poems prepared by Mr. E. K.
Chambers38 for the Muses Library was not based, like
Dr. Grosart's, on a casual use of individual manuscripts and
editions, nor like the Grolier Club edition on a rigid adherence
to the first edition, but on an eclectic use of all the seventeenth-century
editions, supplemented by an occasional reference to
one or other of the manuscript collections, either at first hand
or through Dr. Grosart.
Of these three methods, that of the Grolier Club editor is,
there can be no doubt, the soundest. The edition of 1633
comes to us, indeed, with no a priori authority. It was not
published, or (like the sermons) prepared for the press39 by
the author; nor (as in the case of the first folio edition of
Shakespeare's plays) was it issued by the author's executors.
But if we apply to 1633 the a posteriori tests described by
Dr. Moore in his work on the textual criticism of Dante's
Divina Commedia, if we select a number of test passages,
passages where the editions vary, but where one reading can
be clearly shown to be intrinsically the more probable, by
certain definite tests,40 we shall find that 1633 is, taken all over,
far and away superior to any other single edition, and, I may
add at once, to any single manuscript.
Moreover, any careful examination of the later editions, of
their variations from 1633, and of the text of the poems which
they print for the first time, shows clearly that some method
more trustworthy than individual preference must be found if
we are to distinguish between those of their variations which
have, and those which have not, some authority behind them;
those which are derived from a fresh reference to manuscript
sources, and those which are due to carelessness, to misunderstanding,
or to unwarrantable emendation. Apart from some
such sifting, an edition of Donne based, like Mr. Chambers', on
an eclectic use of the editions is exactly in the same position as
would be an edition of Shakespeare based on an eclectic use
of the Folios, helped out by a quite occasional and quite
eclectic reference to a quarto. A plain reprint of 1633 like
Alford's (of such poems as he publishes) has fewer serious
errors than an eclectic text.
It is here that the manuscripts come to our aid. To take,
indeed, any single manuscript, as Dr. Grosart did, and select
this or that reading from it as seems to you good, is not
a justifiable procedure. This is simply to add to the editions
one more possible source of error. There is no single manuscript
which could with any security be substituted for 1633.
Our analysis of that edition has made it appear probable that
a manuscript resembling D, H49, Lec was the source of
a large part of its text. But it would be very rash to prefer
D, H49, Lec as a whole to 1633.41 It corrects some
errors in
that edition; it has others of its own. Even W, which has
a completer version of some poems than 1633, in these
poems makes some mistakes which 1633 avoids.
If the manuscripts are to help us it must be by collating
them, and establishing what one might call the agreement of
the manuscripts whether universal or partial, noting in the
latter case the comparative value of the different groups.
When we do this we get at once an interesting result. We
find that in about nine cases out of ten the agreement of the
manuscripts is on the side of those readings of 1633 which are
supported by the tests of intrinsic probability referred to
above,42 and on the other hand we find that sometimes the
agreement of the manuscripts is on the side of the later editions,
and that in such cases there is a good deal to be said for the
later reading.43
The first result of a collation of the manuscripts is thus to
vindicate 1633, and to provide us with a means of distinguishing
among later variants those which have, from those which
have not, authority. But in vindicating 1633 the agreement
of the manuscripts vindicates itself. If B's evidence is found
always or most often to support A, a good witness, on those
points on which A's evidence is in itself most probably
correct, not only is A's evidence strengthened but B's own
character as a witness is established, and he may be called in
when A, followed by C, an inferior witness, has gone astray.
In some cases the manuscripts alone give us what is obviously
the correct reading, e.g. p. 25, l. 22, 'But wee no more' for
'But now no more'; p. 72, l. 26, 'his first minute' for 'his
short minute'. These are exceptionally clear cases. There
are some where, I have no doubt, my preference of the
reading of the manuscripts to that of the editions will not
be approved by every reader. I have adopted no rigid rule,
but considered each case on its merits. All the circumstances
already referred to have to be weighed—which reading
is most likely to have arisen from the other, what is Donne's
usage elsewhere, what Scholastic or other 'metaphysical' dogma
underlies the conceit, and what is the source of the text of
a particular poem in 1633.
For my analysis of this edition has thrown light upon what
of itself is evident—that of some poems or groups of poems
1633 provides a more accurate text than of others, viz. of those
for which its source was a manuscript resembling D, H49,
Lec,
but possibly more correct than any one of these, or revised by
an editor who knew the poems. But in printing some of the
poems, e.g. The Progresse of the Soule, a number of the
letters to noble ladies and others,44 the Epithalamion
made at Lincolns Inne, The Prohibition, and a few
others, for which D, H49, Lec was not available,
1633
seems to have followed an inferior manuscript, A18, N, TC
or one resembling it. In these cases it is possible to correct
1633 by comparing it with a better single manuscript, as G or
W, or group of manuscripts, as D, H49, Lec.
Sometimes
even a generally inferior manuscript like O'F seems to offer
a better text of an individual poem, at least in parts, for
occasionally the correct reading has been preserved in only
one or two manuscripts. Only W among eleven manuscripts
which I have recorded (and I have examined others) preserves
the reading in the Epithalamion made at Lincolns Inne,
p. 143, l. 57:
His steeds nill be restrain'd
—which is quite certainly right. Only three manuscripts have
the, to my mind, most probably correct reading in Satyre I,
l. 58, p. 147:
and only two, Q and the Dyce MS. which is its duplicate,
the tempting and, I think, correct reading in Satyre IV, l. 38,
p. 160:
Lastly, there are poems for which 1633 is not available.
The authenticity of these will be discussed later. Their text
is generally very corrupt, especially of those added in 1650
and 1669. Here the manuscripts help us enormously. With
their aid I have been able to give an infinitely more readable
text of the fine Elegie XII, 'Since she must go'; the brilliant
though not very edifying Elegies XVII, XVIII, and XIX; as
well as of most of the poems in the Appendixes. The work
of correcting some of these had been begun by Dr. Grosart
and Mr. Chambers, but much was still left to do by a wider
collation. Dr. Grosart was content with one or two generally
inferior manuscripts, and Mr. Chambers mentions manuscripts
which time or other reasons did not allow him to examine, or
he could not have been content to leave the text of these poems
as it stands in his edition.
One warning which must be borne in mind when making
a comparison of alternative readings has been given by
Mr. Chambers, and my examination of the manuscripts bears
it out: 'In all probability most of Donne's poems existed in
several more or less revised forms, and it was sometimes a
matter of chance which form was used for printing a particular
edition.' The examination of a large number of manuscripts
has shown that it is not probable, but certain, that of some
poems (e.g. The Flea, A Lecture upon the Shadow, The
Good-Morrow,
Elegie XI. The Bracelet) more than one distinct version
was in circulation. Of the Satyres, too, many of the variants
represent, I can well believe, different versions of the poems
circulated by the poet among his friends. And the same may
possibly be true of variants in other poems. Our analysis of
1633 has shown us what versions were followed by that edition.
What happened in later editions was frequently that the readings
of two different versions were combined eclectically. In the
present edition, when it is clear that there were two versions,
my effort has been to retain one tradition pure, recording the
variants in the notes, even when in individual cases the reading
of the text adopted seemed to me inferior to its rival, provided
it was not demonstrably wrong.
In view of what has been said, the aim of the present edition
may be thus briefly stated:
(1) To restore the text of 1633 in all cases where modern
editors have abandoned or disguised it, if there is no evidence,
internal or external, to prove its error or inferiority; and to
show, in the textual notes, how far it has the general support
of the manuscripts.
(2) To correct 1633 when the meaning and the evidence of
the manuscripts point to its error and suggest an indubitable
or highly probable emendation.
(3) To correct throughout, and more drastically, by help of
the manuscripts when such exist, the often carelessly and
erroneously printed text of those poems which were added in
1635, 1649, 1650, and 1669.
(4) By means of the commentary to vindicate or defend my
choice of reading, and to elucidate Donne's thought by
reference to his other works and (but this I have been able to
do only very partially) to his scholastic and other sources.
As regards punctuation, it was my intention from the outset
to preserve the original, altering it only (a) when, judged by
its own standards, it was to my mind wrong—stops were displaced
or dropped, or the editor had misunderstood the poet;
(b) when even though defensible the punctuation was misleading,
tested frequently by the fact that it had misled editors. In
doing this I frequently made unnecessary changes because it
was only by degrees that I came to understand all the subtleties
of older punctuation and to appreciate some of its nuances.
A good deal of my work in the final revision has consisted in
restoring the original punctuation. In doing this I have been
much assisted by the study of Mr. Percy Simpson's work
on Shakespearian Punctuation. My punctuation will not
probably in the end quite satisfy either the Elizabethan purist,
or the critic who would have preferred a modernized text.
I will state the principles which have guided me.
I do not agree with Mr. Chambers that the punctuation, at
any rate of 1633, is 'exceptionally chaotic'. It is sometimes
wrong, and in certain poems, as the Satyres, it is careless.
But as a rule it is excellent on its own principles. Donne,
indeed, was exceptionally fastidious about punctuation and
such typographical details as capital letters, italics, brackets, &c.
The LXXX Sermons of 1640 are a model of fine rhetorical
and rhythmical pointing, pointing which inserted stops to show
you where to stop. The sermons were not printed in his lifetime,
but we know that he wrote them out for the press, hoping
that they might be a source of income to his son.
But Donne did not prepare his poems for the press. Their
punctuation is that of the manuscript from which they were
taken, revised by the editor or printer. One can often recognize
in D the source of a stop in 1633, or can see what the pointing
and use of capitals would have been had Donne himself supervised
the printing. The printer's man was sometimes careless;
the printer or editor had prejudices of his own in certain
things; and Donne is a difficult and subtle poet. All these
circumstances led to occasional error.
The printer's prejudice was one which Donne shared, but
not, I think, to quite the same extent. Compared, for example,
with the Anniversaries (printed in Donne's lifetime) 1633 shows
a fondness for the semicolon,45 not only within the sentence,
but separating sentences, instead of a full stop, when these are
closely related in thought to one another. In an argumentative
and rhetorical poet like Donne the result is excellent, once
one grows accustomed to it, as is the use of commas, where we
should use semicolons, within the sentence, dividing co-ordinate
clauses from one another. On the other hand this use of semicolons
leads to occasional ambiguity when one which separates
two sentences comes into close contact with another within the
sentence. For example, in Satyre III, ll. 69-72, how should
an editor, modernizing the punctuation, deal with the semicolons
in ll. 70 and 71? Should he print thus?—
But unmoved thou
Of force must one, and forc'd but one allow;
And the right. Ask thy father which is shee;
Let him ask his.
With trifling differences that is how Chambers and the
Grolier Club editor print them. But the lines might run, to
my mind preferably—
But unmoved thou
Of force must one, and forc'd but one allow.
And the right; ask thy father which is shee,
Let him ask his.
'And the right' being taken as equivalent to 'And as to the
right'. One might even print—
One of the semicolons is equivalent to a little more than a
comma, the other to a little less than a full stop.
Another effect of this finely-shaded punctuation is that the
question is constantly forced upon an editor, is it correct?
Has the printer understood the subtler connexion of Donne's
thought, or has he placed the semicolon where the full stop
should be, the comma where the semicolon? My solution of
these difficulties has been to face and try to overcome them.
I have corrected the punctuation where it seemed to me, on its
own principles, definitely wrong; and I have, but more sparingly,
amended the pointing where it seemed to me to disguise
the subtler connexions of Donne's thought or to disturb the rhetoric
and rhythm of his verse paragraphs. In doing so I have
occasionally taken a hint from the manuscripts, especially D
and W, which, by the kindness of Mr. Gosse and Professor
Dowden, I have had by me while revising the text. But if I
occasionally quote these manuscripts in support of my punctuation,
it is only with a view to showing that I have not departed
from the principles of Elizabethan pointing. I do not quote
them as authoritative. On questions of punctuation none of the
extant manuscripts could be appealed to as authorities. Their
punctuation is often erratic and chaotic, when it is not omitted
altogether. Finally, I have recorded every change that I have
made. A reader should be able to gather from the text
and notes combined exactly what was the text of the
first edition of each poem, whether it appeared in 1633 or
a subsequent edition, in every particular, whether of word,
spelling, or punctuation. My treatment of the last will not, as
I have said, satisfy every reader. I can only say that I have
given to the punctuation of each poem as much time and
thought as to any part of the work. In the case of Donne
this is justifiable. I am not sure that it would be in the case
of a simpler, a less intellectual poet. It would be an easier
task either to retain the old punctuation and leave a reader to
correct for himself, or to modernize. With all its refinements,
Elizabethan punctuation erred by excess. A reader who gives
thought and sympathy to a poem does not need all these commands
to pause, and they frequently irritate and mislead.
An early offer of him to yor sight
Was the best way to doe the Author right
My thoughts could fall on; wch his soule wch knew
The weight of a iust Prayse will think't a true.
Our commendation is suspected, when
Wee Elegyes compose on sleeping men,
The Manners of the Age prevayling so
That not our conscience wee, but witts doe show.
And 'tis an often gladnes, that men dye
Of unmatch'd names to write more easyly.
Such my religion is of him; I hold
It iniury to have his merrit tould;
Who (like the Sunn) is righted best when wee
Doe not dispute but shew his quality.
Since all the speech of light is less than it.
An eye to that is still the best of witt.
And nothing can express, for truth or haste
So happily, a sweetnes as our taste.
Wch thought at once instructed me in this
Safe way to prayse him, and yor hands to kisse.
Affectionately yrs
J. V.
tu longe sequere et vestigia
semper adora
Vaughani
Voortreffelyk Donn, o deugdzaam leeraer, duld
Dat ik u bovenal, daar'k u bij voorkeur noeme,
Als godlijk Dichter en welsprekend Reednaer roeme,
Uit uwen gulden mond, 'tzij ge in een vriendenzaal
Of van den kansel spraakt, klonk louter godentaal,
Wier nektar ik zoo vaak met harte wellust proefde.
Oh silly John surprised with joy
For Joy hath made thee silly
Joy to enjoy thy sweetest Jone
Jone whiter than the Lillie;
| Loves Vsury, p. 13, l. 5: |
| let my body raigne 1633 |
let my body range 1635-69, Chambers |
| Aire and Angels, p. 22, l. 19: |
| Ev'ry thy hair 1633 |
Thy every hair 1650-69, Chambers |
| The Curse, p. 41, ll. 3, 10: |
| His only, and only his purse 1633-54 |
Him, only for his purse 1669, Chambers |
| who hath made him such 1633 |
who hath made them such 1669, Chambers |
| A Valediction, p. 50, l. 16: |
| Those things which elemented it 1633 |
The thing which elemented it 1669, Chambers |
| The Relique, p. 62, l. 13: |
| mis-devotion 1633-54 |
mass-devotion 1669, Chambers |
| Elegie II, p. 80, l. 6: |
| is rough 1633, 1669 |
is tough 1635-54, Chambers |
| Elegie VI, p. 88, ll. 24, 26: |
| and then chide 1633 |
and there chide 1635-69, Chambers |
| her upmost brow 1633 |
her utmost brow 1635-69, Chambers (an oversight). |
| Epithalamions, p. 129, l. 60: |
| store, 1633 |
starres, 1635-69, Chambers |
| Ibid., p. 133, l. 55: |
| I am not then from Court 1633 |
And am I then from Court? 1635-69, Chambers |
| Satyres, p. 169, ll. 37-41: |
The Iron Age that was, when justice was sold, now
Injustice is sold deerer farre; allow
All demands, fees, and duties; gamsters, anon
The mony which you sweat, and sweare for, is gon
Into other hands:
1633 |
The iron Age that was, when justice was sold (now
Injustice is sold dearer) did allow
All claim'd fees and duties. Gamesters, anon
The mony which you sweat and swear for is gon
Into other hands. 1635-54, Chambers (no italics;
'that' a relative
pronoun, I take it) |
| The Calme, p. 179, l. 30: |
| our brimstone Bath 1633 |
a brimstone bath 1635-69, Chambers |
| To Sr Henry Wotton, p. 180, l. 17: |
| dung, and garlike 1633 |
dung, or garlike 1635-69, Chambers |
| Ibid., p. 181, ll. 25, 26: |
The Country is a desert, where no good,
Gain'd, as habits, not borne, is understood. 1633 |
The Country is a desert, where the good,
Gain'd inhabits not, borne, is not understood. 1635-54, Chambers. |
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. Of course, it must be
clearly understood that the only proof which can be offered
that Donne is the author of many poems is, that they are
ascribed to him in edition after edition and manuscript after
manuscript, and that they bear a strong family resemblance.
There is no edition issued by himself or in his lifetime.3
Bearing this in mind we find that in the edition of 1633 there
are only two poems—Basse's Epitaph on Shakespeare and
the Psalme 137, both already mentioned—for the genuineness
of which there is not strong evidence, internal and external.
But these two poems are the only ones not contained in D,
H49, Lec or in A18, N, TC. In D,
H49, Lec, on the other
hand, there are no poems which are not, on the same evidence,
genuine. There are, however, some which are not in 1633,
seven in all. But of these, five are the Elegies which, we have
seen above, the editor of 1633 was prohibited from printing.
The others are the Lecture upon the Shadow (why omitted in
1633 I cannot say) and the lines 'My fortune and my choice'.
There are poems in 1633 which are not in D, H49,
Lec.
These, with the exception of poems previously printed, as the
Anniversaries and the Elegie on Prince Henry, are all in
A18, N, TC. 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.
- 1669. Elegie XIX. Going to Bed.
- 1802.5 Elegie XX. Love's Warr.
(These are the five Elegies suppressed in 1633—at such long
intervals did they find their way into print.)
We may add to these, without lengthy investigation, the
four Holy Sonnets added in 1635:—
- I. 'Thou hast made me.'
- III. 'O might those sighs and tears.'
- V. 'I am a little world.'
- VIII. 'If faithfull soules.'
For these (though in none of the three collections) we have,
besides internal probability, the evidence of W, clearly an
unexceptionable
manuscript witness. Walton, too, vouches for
the authenticity of the Hymne to God my God, in my sicknesse,
which indeed no one but Donne could have written.
This leaves for investigation, of poems inserted in 1635,
1649, 1650, or 1669, the following:—
- 1. Song. 'Soules joy, now I am gone.'
- 2. Farewell to love.
- 3. Song. 'Deare Love, continue nice and chaste.'
- 4. Sonnet. The Token.
- 5. 'He that cannot chuse but love.'
- 6. Elegie (XIII in 1635). 'Come, Fates; I feare you not.'
- 7. Elegie XII (XIIII in 1635). His parting from her.
'Since she must goe, and I must mourne.'
- 8. Elegie XIII (XV in 1635). Julia.
'Harke newes, ô envy.'
- 9. Elegie XIV (XVI in 1635). A Tale of a Citizen and his Wife. 'I sing no harme.'
- 10. Elegie XVII. Variety. 'The heavens rejoice.'
- 11. Satyre (VI in 1635, VII in 1669).
'Men write that love and reason disagree.'
- 12. Satyre (VI in 1669).
'Sleep, next society and true friendship.'
- 13. To the Countesse of Huntington.
'That unripe side of earth, that heavy clime.'
- 14. A Dialogue between Sr Henry Wotton and Mr. Donne.
'If her disdayne least change in you can move.'
- 15. To Ben Iohnson, 6. Jan. 1603.
'The state and mens affaires.'
- 16. To Ben Iohnson, 9. Novembris, 1603.
'If great men wrong me.'
- 17. To Sir Tho. Roe. 1603.
Deare Thom: 'Tell her, if she to hired servants shew.'
- 18. Elegie on Mistresse Boulstred.
'Death be not proud.'
- 19. On the blessed Virgin Mary.
'In that, ô Queene of Queenes.'
- 20. Upon the translation of the Psalmes by Sir Philip
Sydney and the Countesse of Pembroke his Sister.
'Eternall God, (for whom who ever dare).'
- 21. Ode.
'Vengeance will sit.'
- 22. To Mr. Tilman after he had taken Orders.
'Thou, whose diviner soule hath caus'd thee now.'
- 23. On the Sacrament.
'He was the Word that spake it.'
Of these twenty-three poems there is none which does not
seem to me fairly open to question, though of some I think
Donne is certainly the author.
Seven of the twenty-three (3, 6, 11, 12, 15, 16, 17) I have
gathered together in my Appendix A, with two ('Shall I goe
force' and 'True love finds witt', the first of which6 was printed
in Le Prince d'Amour, 1660, and reprinted by Simeon,
1856, and Grosart, 1872), as the work not of Donne but of
Sir John Roe. The reasons which have led me to do so are
not perhaps singly conclusive, but taken together they form
a converging and fairly convincing demonstration. The
argument starts from Ben Jonson's statement to Drummond
of Hawthornden regarding the Epistle at p. 408 (15 above):
'That Sir John Roe loved him; and that when they two were
ushered by my Lord Suffolk from a Mask, Roe writt a moral
Epistle to him, which began. That next to playes the Court
and the State were the best. God threatneth Kings, Kings
Lords [as] Lords do us.' (Drummond's Conversations with
Jonson), ed. Laing.
Now this statement of Jonson's is confirmed by some at any
rate of the manuscripts which contain the poem (see textual
notes) since these append the initials 'J. R.' But all the
manuscripts which contain the one poem contain also the next,
'If great men wrong me,' and though none have added the
initials 'J. R.', B, in which it has been separated from 'The
state and mens affairs' by two other poems, appends 'doubtfull
author' (the whole collection being professedly one of Donne's
poems). The third poem, To Sr Tho. Roe, 1603 (p. 410), is in
the same way found in all the manuscripts (except two, which
are one, H40 and RP31) which contain the epistles to Jonson,
generally in their immediate proximity, and in B initialled
'J. R.' In the others the poem is unsigned, and in L74 a much
later hand has added 'J. D.'
Of the other poems, the first—the poem which was in
1669 printed as Donne's seventh Satyre, was dropped in 1719
but restored by Chalmers, Grosart, and Chambers—is said in B
to be 'By Sir John Roe', and it is initialled 'J. R.' in TCD.
Even an undiscriminating manuscript like O'F adds the note
'Quere, if Donnes or Sr Th: Rowes', the more famous Sir
Thomas Roe being substituted for his (in 1632) forgotten
relative. Of the remaining five poems only two, 'Dear Love,
continue nice and chaste' (p. 412) and 'Shall I goe force an
Elegie?' (p. 410) are actually initialled in any of the manuscripts
in which I have found them.
But the presence or absence of a name or initials is not
a conclusive argument. It depends on the character of the
manuscript. That 'Sleep next Society' is initialled 'J. R.'
in so carefully prepared a collection of Donne's poems as TCD
is valuable evidence, and the initials in a collection so well
vouched for as HN, Drummond's copy of a collection of
poems in the possession of Donne, can only be set aside by
a scepticism which makes all historical questions insoluble.
But no reliance can be placed upon the unsupported statement
of any other of the manuscripts in which some or all of these
poems occur, any more than on that of the 1635 and later
editions. The best of them (H40, RP31) are often silent, and
the others are too often mistaken to be implicitly trusted. If
we are to get the truth from them it must be by cross-examination.
For the second proof on which my ascription of the poems
to Roe is based is the singular regularity with which they
adhere to one another. If a manuscript has one it generally
has the rest in close proximity. Thus B, after giving thirty-six
poems by Donne, of which only one is wrongly ascribed,
continues with a number that are clearly by other authors as well
as Donne, and of ten sequent poems five are 'Sleep next
Society,' 'The State and mens affairs,' 'True love finds witt,'
'If great men wrong mee,' 'Dear Thom: Tell her if she.' A
fragment of 'Men say that love and reason disagree' comes
rather later. H40 and RP31 give in immediate sequence
'The State and mens affairs,' 'If great men wrong me,' 'True
Love finds witt,' 'Shall I goe force an elegie,' 'Come Fates;
I fear you not.' L74, a collection not only of poems by
Donne but of the work of other wits of the day, transcribes in
immediate sequence 'Deare Love continue,' 'The State and
mens affairs,' 'If great men wrong mee,' 'Shall I goe force an
elegie,' 'Tell her if shee,' 'True love finds witt,' 'Come Fates,
I fear you not.' Lastly A10, a quite miscellaneous collection,
gives in immediate or very close sequence '[Dear Thom:]
Tell her if she,' 'True love finds witt,' 'Dear Love continue
nice and chaste,' 'Shall I goe force an elegie,' 'Men write that
love and reason disagree.' 'Come Fates; I fear you not'
follows after a considerable interval.
It cannot be by an entire accident that these poems thus
recur in manuscripts which have so far as we can see no common
origin.7 And as one is ascribed to Roe on indisputable
(and) three on very strong evidence, it is a fair inference, if borne
out by a general resemblance of thought, and style, and verse,
that they are all by Roe.
To my mind they have a strong family resemblance, and
very little resemblance to Donne's work. They are witty, but
not with the subtle, brilliant, metaphysical wit of Donne; they
are obscure at times, but not as Donne's poetry is, by too swift
and subtle transitions, and ingeniously applied erudition;
there are in them none of Donne's peculiar scholastic doctrines
of angelic knowledge, of the microcosm, of soul and body, or
of his chemical and medical allusions; they are coarse and
licentious, but not as Donne's poems are, with a kind of witty
depravity, Italian in origin, and reminding one of Ovid and
Aretino, but like Jonson's poetry with the coarseness of
the tavern and the camp. On both Jonson's and Roe's work
rests the trail of what was probably the most licentious and
depraving school in Europe, the professional armies serving
in the Low Countries.
For a brief account of Roe's life will explain some features
of his poetry, especially the vivid picture of life in London in
the Satire, 'Sleep next Society,' which is strikingly different
in tone, and in the aspects of that life which are presented,
from anything in Donne's Satyres. Roe has been hitherto
a mere name appearing in the notes to Jonson's and to
Donne's poems. No critic has taken the trouble to identify
him. Gifford suggested or stated that he was the son of
Sir Thomas Roe, who as Mayor of London was knighted in
1569. Mr. Chambers accepts this and when referring to
Jonson, Epigram 98, on Roe the ambassador, he adds, 'there
are others in the same collection to his uncles Sir John Roe
and William Roe.' Who this uncle was they do not tell us,
but Hunter in the Chorus Vatum notes that, if Gifford's
conjecture be sound, then he must be John Roe of Clapham
in Bedfordshire, the eldest son of the Lord Mayor.
It is a quaint picture we thus get of the famous ambassador's
uncle (he was older than 'Dear Thom's' father)—a
kind of Sir Toby Belch, taking the pleasures of the town
with his nephew, and writing a satire which might make
a young man blush to read. But in fact John Roe of Clapham
was never Sir John, and he was dead twelve years before 1603,
when these poems were written.8 Sir John Roe the poet was
the cousin, not the uncle, of the ambassador. He was the
eldest son of William Rowe (or Roe) of Higham Hill, near
Walthamstow, in the county of Essex.9 William Roe was the
third son of the first Lord Mayor of the name Roe.10 He had
two sons, John and William, the latter of whom is probably the
person addressed in Jonson's Epigrammes, cxxviii. John was
born, according to a statement in Morant's History of Essex
(1768), on the fifth of May, 1581. This harmonizes with the fact
that when the elder William Roe died in 1596 John was still
a minor and thereby a cause of anxiety to his father, who in his
will, proved in 1596, begs his wife and executors to 'be suiters
for his wardeshipp, that his utter spoyle (as much as in them
is) maie be prevented'. This probably refers to the chance
of a courtier being made ward and despoiling the lad. The
following year he matriculated at Queen's College, Oxford.11
How long he stayed there is not known, probably not long.
The career he chose was that of a soldier, and his first service
was in Ireland. If he went there with Essex in 1599 he is
perhaps one of that general's many knights. But he may
have gone thither later, for he evidently found a patron in
Mountjoy. In 1605 that nobleman, then Earl of Devonshire,
wrote to Sir Ralph Winwood, Ambassador to the United
Provinces, first to recommend Roe to him as one wishing to
follow the wars and therein to serve the States; and then to
thank him for his readiness to befriend Sir John Roe. He
adds that he will be ever ready to serve the States to requite
any favour Roe shall receive.12 By 1608 he was dead, for
a list of captains discharged in Ireland since 1603 gives the
following: 'Born in England and dead in 1608—Sir John Roe.'13
Such in brief outline is the life of the man who in 1603,
possibly between his Irish and Low Country campaigns,
appears in London as one, with his more famous cousin
Thomas, of the band of wits and poets whose leader was
Jonson, whose most brilliant star was Donne. Jonson's
epigrams and conversations enable us to fill in some of the
colours wanting in the above outline. The most interesting
of these shows Roe to have been in Russia as well as Ireland
and the Low Countries, and tells us that he was, like 'Natta
the new knight' in his Satyre, a duellist:
ON SIR IOHN ROE.
What two brave perills of the private sword
Could not effect, not all the furies doe,
That selfe-devided Belgia did afford;
What not the envie of the seas reach'd too,
The cold of Mosco, and fat Irish ayre,
His often change of clime (though not of mind)
What could not worke; at home in his repaire
Was his blest fate, but our hard lot to find.
Which shewes, where ever death doth please t' appeare,
Seas, serenes, swords, shot, sicknesse, all are there.
In his conversations with Drummond Jonson as usual gave
more intimate and less complimentary details: 'Sir John Roe
was an infinite spender, and used to say, when he had no
more to spend he could die. He died in his (i.e. Jonson's)
arms of the pest, and he furnished his charges 20lb., which
was given him back,' doubtless by his brother William.
Morant states that 'Sir John the eldest son, having no issue,
sold this Manor (i.e. Higham-hill) to his father-in-law Sir
Reginald Argall, of whom it was purchased by the second
son—Sir William Rowe'.
Such a career is much more likely than Donne's to have
produced the satire 'Sleep, next Society', with its lurid
picture of cashiered captains, taverns, stews, duellists, hard
drinkers, and parasites. It is much more like a scene out of
Bartholomew Fair than any of Donne's five Satyres. Nor was
Donne likely at any time to have written of James I as Roe
does. He moved in higher circles, and was more politic.
But Roe had ability. 'Deare Love, continue nice and chaste'
is not quite in the taste of to-day, but it is a good example of
the paradoxical, metaphysical lyric; and there are both
feeling and wit in 'Come, Fates; I feare you not', unlike as it
is to Donne's subtle, erudite, intenser strain.
Returning to the list of poems open to question on
pp. cxxviii-ix we have sixteen left to consider. Of some of
these there is very little to say.
Nos. 1 and 14 are most probably by the Earl of Pembroke,
and the Earl of Pembroke collaborating with Sir Benjamin
Rudyard. Both were wits and poets of Donne's circle. The
first song,
'Soules joy, now I am gone'
is ascribed to Donne only in 1635-69, and is there inaccurately
printed. It is assigned to Pembroke in the younger Donne's
edition of Pembroke and Ruddier's Poems (1660), a bad witness,
but also by Lansdowne MS. 777, which Mr. Chambers justly
calls 'a very good authority'.14 The latter, however, believes the
poem to be Donne's because the central idea—the inseparableness
of souls—is his, and so is the contemptuous tone of
Fooles have no meanes to meet,
But by their feet.
But both the contemptuous tone and the Platonic thought
were growing common. We get it again in Lovelace's
If to be absent were to be
Away from thee.
The thought is Donne's, but not the airy note, the easy style,
or the tripping prosody. Donne never writes of absence in this
cheerful, confident strain. He consoles himself at times with
the doctrine of inseparable souls, but the note of pain is never
absent. He cannot cheat his passionate heart and senses with
metaphysical subtleties.
The song Farewell to love, the second in the list of poems
added in 1635, is found only in O'F and S96. There is
therefore
no weighty external evidence for assigning it to Donne,
but no one can read it without feeling that it is his. The
cynical yet passionate strain of wit, the condensed style, and the
metaphysical turn given to the argument, are all in his manner.
As printed in 1635 the point of the third stanza is obscured.
As I have ventured to amend it, an Aristotelian doctrine is
referred to in a way that only Donne would have done in
quite such a setting.
The three Elegies, XII, XIII, and XIV (7, 8, 9 in the list),
must also be assigned to Donne, unless some more suitable
candidate can be advanced on really convincing grounds. The
first of the three, His parting from her, is so fine a poem that it
is difficult to think any unknown poet could have written it. In
sincerity and poetic quality it is one of the finest of the Elegies,15
and in this sincerer note, the absence of witty paradox, it differs
from poems like The Bracelet and The Perfume and resembles
the fine elegy called His Picture and two other pieces that
stand somewhat apart from the general tenor of the Elegies,
namely, the famous elegy On his Mistris, in which he dissuades
her from travelling with him as a page:
By our first strange and fatal interview,
and that rather enigmatical poem The Expostulation, which
found its way into Jonson's Underwoods:
To make the doubt clear that no woman's true,
Was it my fate to prove it strong in you?
All of these poems bear the imprint of some actual experience,
and to this cause we may perhaps trace the comparative
rareness with which His parting from her is found in manuscripts,
and that it finally appeared in a mutilated form. The
poet may have given copies only to a few friends and desired
that it should not be circulated. In the Second Collection of
poems in TCD it is signed at the close, 'Sir Franc: Wryothlesse.'
Who is intended by this I do not know. The ascriptions
in this collection are many of them purely fanciful. Still,
that the poem is Donne's rests on internal evidence alone.
Of the other two elegies, Julia, which is found in only two
manuscripts, B and O'F, is quite the kind of thing Donne
might have amused himself by writing in the scurrilous style
of Horace's invectives against Canidia, frequently imitated by
Mantuan and other Humanists. The chief difficulty with
regard to the second, A Tale of a Citizen and his Wife, is to
find Donne writing in this vein at so late a period as 1609 or
1610, the date implied in several of the allusions. He was
already the author of religious poems, including probably La
Corona. In 1610 he wrote his Litanie, and, as Professor
Norton points out, in the same letter in which he tells of the
writing of the latter he refers to some poem of a lighter nature,
the name of which is lost through a mutilation of the letter,
and says, 'Even at this time when (I humbly thank God) I ask
and have his comfort of sadder meditations I do not condemn
in myself that I have given my wit such evaporations as those,
if they be free from profaneness, or obscene provocations.'
Whether this would cover the elegy in question is a point on
which perhaps our age and Donne's would not decide alike.
Donne's nature was a complex one. Jack Donne and the
grave and reverend divine existed side by side for not a little
time, and even in the sermons Donne's wit is once or twice
rather coarser than our generation would relish in the pulpit.
But once more we must add that it is possible Donne has in
this case been made responsible for what is another's. Every
one wrote this occasional poetry, and sometimes wrote it well.
There is no more difficult poem to understand or to assign
to or from Donne than the long letter headed To the Countesse
of Huntington, 13 on the list, which, for the time being, I
have placed in the Appendix B. On internal grounds there
is more to be said for ascribing it to Donne than any other
single poem in this collection. Nevertheless I have resolved
to let it stand, that it may challenge the attention it deserves.16
The reasons which led me to doubt Donne's authorship are
these:
(1) The poem was not included in the 1633 edition, nor is it
found in either of the groups D, H49, Lec and A18,
N, TCC,
TCD. It was added in 1635 with four other spurious poems,
the dialogue ascribed to Donne and Wotton but assigned by
the great majority of manuscripts to the Earl of Pembroke and
Sir Benjamin Rudyard, the two epistles to Ben Jonson, and the
Elegy addressed to Sir Thomas Roe, which we have assigned,
for reasons given above, to Sir John Roe. The poem is found
in only two manuscript collections, viz. P and the second,
miscellaneous collection of seventeenth-century poems in TCD.
In both of these it is headed Sr Walter Ashton (or Aston) to
the Countesse of Huntingtone, and no reference whatsoever is
made to Donne. I do not attach much importance to this title.
Imaginary headings were quite common in the case of poems
circulating in manuscript. Poems are inscribed as having been
written by the Earl of Essex or Sir Walter Raleigh the night
before he died, or as found in the pocket of Chidiock Tichbourne.
Editors have occasionally taken these too seriously.
Drayton's Heroicall Epistles made it a fashion to write such
letters in the case of any notorious love affair or intrigue.
The manuscript P contains a long imaginary letter from Sir
Philip Sidney to Lady Mary Rich and a fragment of her reply.
In the same manuscript the poem, probably by the Earl of
Pembroke, 'Victorious beauty though your eyes,' is headed
The Mar: B to the Lady Fe: Her., i.e. the Marquis of
Buckingham to—I am not sure what lady is intended. The
only thing which the title given to the letter in question suggests
is that it was not an actual letter to the Countess but an
imaginary one.
(2) Of Donne's relations with Elizabeth Stanley, who in 1603
became the Countess of Huntingdon, his biographers have not
been able to tell us very much. He must have met her at the
house of Sir Thomas Egerton when her mother, the dowager
Countess of Derby, married that statesman in 1600. Donne
says:
I was your Prophet in your yonger dayes,
And now your Chaplaine, God in you to praise.
(p. 203, ll. 69-70.)
Donne's friend, Sir Henry Goodyere, seems to have had
relations with her either directly or through her first cousin, the
Countess of Bedford, for Donne writes to him from Mitcham,
'I remember that about this time you purpose a journey to
fetch, or meet the Lady Huntington.' This fact lends support
to the view of Mr. Chambers and Mr. Gosse that she is 'the
Countesse' referred to in the following extract from a letter to
Goodyere, which has an important bearing on the poem under
consideration. Very unfortunately it is not dated, and
Mr. Chambers and Mr. Gosse differ widely as to the year in
which it may have been written. The latter places it in April,
1615, when Donne was on the eve of taking Orders, and was
approaching his noble patronesses for help in clearing himself of
debt. But Mr. Chambers points to the closing reference to 'a
Christning at Peckam', and dates the letter 1605-6, when Donne
was at Peckham after leaving Pyrford and before settling at
Mitcham. I am not sure that this is conclusive, for in Donne's
unsettled life before 1615 Mrs. Donne might at any time
have gone for her lying-in or for a christening festival to the
house of her sister Jane, Lady Grimes, at Peckham. But the
tone of the letter, melancholy and reflective, is that of the
letters to Goodyere written at Mitcham, and the general theme
of the letter, a comparison of the different Churches, is that of
other letters of the same period. The one in question (Letters
1651, p. 100; Gosse, Life, ii. 77) seems to be almost a continuation
of another (Letters, 1651, p. 26; Gosse, Life, i.
225). Whatever be its date, this is what Donne says: 'For
the other part of your Letter, spent in the praise of the
Countesse, I am always very apt to beleeve it of her, and can
never beleeve it so well, and so reasonably, as now, when it is
averred by you; but for the expressing it to her, in that sort
as you seeme to counsaile, I have these two reasons to decline
it. That that knowledge which she hath of me, was in the
beginning of a graver course then of a Poet, into which (that
I may also keep my dignity) I would not seeme to relapse.
The Spanish proverb informes me, that he is a fool which
cannot make one Sonnet, and he is mad which makes two.
The other strong reason is my integrity to the other Countesse'
(i.e. probably the Countess of Bedford. The words which
follow seem to imply a more recent acquaintance than is compatible
with so late a date as 1615), 'of whose worthinesse though
I swallowed your words, yet I have had since an explicit faith,
and now a knowledge: and for her delight (since she descends
to them) I had reserved not only all the verses which I should
make, but all the thoughts of womens worthinesse. But because
I hope she will not disdain, that I should write well of her
Picture, I have obeyed you thus far as to write; but intreat
you by your friendship, that by this occasion of versifying,
I be not traduced, nor esteemed light in that Tribe, and that
house where I have lived. If those reasons which moved you
to bid me write be not constant in you still, or if you meant
not that I should write verses; or if these verses be too bad,
or too good, over or under her understanding, and not fit;
I pray receive them as a companion and supplement of this
Letter to you,' &c. If this was written in 1615 it is incompatible
with the fact (supposing the poem under consideration to be
by Donne) that he had already written to the Countess of
Huntingdon a letter in a very thinly disguised tone of amatory
compliment. If, however, it was written, as is probable, earlier,
the reference may be to this very poem. Perhaps Goodyere
thought it 'over or under' the Countess's understanding and
did not present it.
(3) Certainly, looking at the poem itself, one has difficulty
in declaring it to be, or not to be, Donne's work. Its metaphysical
wit and strain of high-flown, rarefied compliment
suggest that only he could have written it; in parts, on the other
hand, the tone does not seem to me to be his. It is certainly
very different from that of the other letters to noble ladies. It
carries one back to the date of the Elegies. If Donne's, it is
a further striking proof how much of the tone of a lover even
a married poet could assume in addressing a noble patroness.
Would Donne at any time of his life write to the Countess of
Huntingdon in the vein of p. 418, ll. 21-36, or the next paragraph,
ll. 37-76? One could imagine the Earl of Pembroke,
or some one on a level of equality socially with the Countess,
writing so; not a dependent addressing a patroness. The
only points of style and verse which might serve as clues are
(1) the peculiar use of 'young', e.g. l. 84 'youngest flatteries',
l. 13 'younger formes'. With which compare in the Letter
to Wotton, here added, at p. 188:
Ere sicknesses attack, yong death is best.
(2) A recurring pattern of line to which Sir Walter Raleigh
drew my attention:
- 35. Who first looked sad, griev'd, pin'd, and shew'd his pain.
- 61. Love is wise here, keeps home, gives reason sway.
- 88. You are the straight line, thing prais'd, attribute.
- 113. Such may have eye and hand, may sigh, may speak.
I have not found this pattern elsewhere, and indeed the
versification throughout seems to me unlike that of Donne.
Donne's decasyllabic couplets have two quite distinctive
patterns. The one is that of the Satyres. In these the
logical or rhetorical scheme runs right across the metrical
scheme—that is, the sense overflows from line to line, and the
pauses come regularly inside the line. A good example is
the paragraph beginning at p. 156, l. 65.
Graccus loves all as one, &c.
In the Elegies and in the Letters the structure is not so
irregular and unmusical, but is periodic or paragraphic, i.e.
the lines do not fall into couplets but into larger groups knit
together by a single sentence or some closely connected
sentences, the full meaning or emphasis being well sustained
to the close. Good examples are Elegie I. ll. 1 to 16,
Elegie IV. ll. 13 to 26, Elegie V. l. 5 to the end, Elegie
VIII. ll. 1 to 34. Excellent examples are also the letter To the
Countesse of Salisbury and the Hymn to the Saints and the
Marquesse Hamylton. Each of these is composed of three
or four paragraphs at the most. Now in the poem under
consideration there are two, or three at the most, paragraphs
which suggest Donne's manner, viz. ll. 1 to 10, ll. 11 to 16, and
ll. 37 to 46. But the rest of the poem is almost monotonously
regular in its couplet structure. To my mind the poem is not
unlike what Rudyard might have written. Indeed a fine piece
of verse by Rudyard, belonging to the dialogue between him
and the Earl of Pembroke on Love and Reason, is attributed
to Donne in several manuscripts. The question is an open
one, but had I realized in time the weakness of the positive
external evidence I should not have moved the poem. I have
been able to improve the text materially.
With regard to the Elegie on Mistris Boulstred (18 on the
list) I cannot expect readers to accept at once the conjecture
I have ventured to put forward regarding the authorship, for
I have changed my own mind regarding it. Two Elegies,
both perhaps on Mris. Boulstred, Donne certainly did write, viz.
Death I recant, and say, unsaid by mee
What ere hath slip'd, that might diminish thee;
and another, entitled Death, beginning
Language thou art too narrow, and too weake
To ease us now; great sorrow cannot speake.
Both of these are attributed to Donne by quite a number of
manuscripts and are very characteristic of his poetry in this
kind, highly charged with ingenious wit and extravagant
eulogy. It is worth noting that in the Hawthornden MS. the
second bears no title (it is signed 'J. D.'), and that it is not
included in D, H49, Lec. It is certainly Donne's; it is not
quite certain that it was written on Mris. Boulstred. Indeed,
as I have pointed out elsewhere, the reference to Judith in a
verse letter which seems to have been sent to Lady Bedford
with the poem, and the tenor of the poem, suggest that Lady
Markham is the subject of the elegy. Jonson, in speaking of
Mris. Boulstred, says, 'whose Epitaph Done made,' which points
to a single poem; but he may have been speaking loosely, or
be loosely reported.
In contrast to these two elegies that beginning 'Death be
not proud' is found in only five manuscripts, B, H40, O'F,
P, RP31. Of these H40 and RP31 are really one, and in them
the poem is not ascribed to Donne. In two others, O'F and
P, the poem is given in a very interesting and suggestive
manner, viz. as a continuation of 'Death I recant'. What this
suggests is the fairly obvious fact that the second poem is to
some extent a reply to the first. 'Death I recant' is answered
by 'Death be not proud'. If O'F and P are right in their
arrangement, then Donne answers himself. Beginning in one
mood, he closes in another; from a mood which is almost
rebellious he passes to one of Christian resignation. This was
the view I put forward in a note to the Cambridge History of
Literature (iv. 216). I had hardly, however, sent off my
proofs before I felt that there was more than one objection to
this view. There is in the first place nothing to show that
'Death I recant' is not a poem complete in itself; there is no
preparation for the recantation. In the second place, 'Death
be not proud' is as a poem slighter in texture, vaguer in
thought, in feeling more sentimental and pious, than Donne's
own Epicedes. Whoever wrote it had a warmer feeling for
Mris. Boulstred than underlies Donne's rather frigid hyperboles.
This suggested to me that the poem was indeed an
answer to 'Death I recant', but by another person, another
member of Lady Bedford's entourage. In this mood I came
on the ascription in H40, viz. 'By C. L. of B.' This indicated
no one whom I knew; but in RP31 it appeared as 'By L. C.
of B.,' i.e. Lucy, Countess of Bedford. We know that the
Countess did write verses, for Donne refers to them. In
a letter which Mr. Gosse dates 1609 (Gosse's Life, &c., i. 217;
Letters, 1651, p. 67) he speaks of some verses written to himself:
'They must needs be an excellent exercise of your wit,
which speak so well of so ill.' That the Countess of Bedford
could have written 'Death be not proud', we cannot prove in
the absence of other examples of her work; that if she could
she did, is very likely. She had probably asked Donne for
some verses on the death of her friend. He replied with
'Death I recant'. The tone, which if not pagan is certainly
not Christian, while it is untouched by any real feeling for the
subject of the elegy, displeased her, and she replied in lines at
once more ardent and more resigned. At any rate, whether
by Lady Bedford or not, the poem is not like Donne's work,
and the external evidence is against its being his. B attributes
it to 'F. B.', i.e. Francis Beaumont. It is right, on the
other hand, to point out that Donne opens one of the Holy
Sonnets with the exclamation used here:
I have left the question of authorship an open one. Personally
I cannot bring myself to think that it is Donne's.
The sonnet On the Blessed Virgin Mary (19 on the list), 'In
that O Queene of Queenes, thy birth was free,' is included
among Donne's poems in 1635 and in B, O'F, S,
S96. There
is little doubt that it is not Donne's but Henry Constable's. It
is found in a series of Spiritual Sonnets by H. C., in Harl. MS.
7553, f. 41, which were first published by T. Park in Heliconia,
ii. 1815, and unless all of these are to be given to Donne this
cannot. It is not in his style, and Donne more than once
denies the Immaculate Conception in the full Catholic sense of
the doctrine. Nothing could more expressly contradict this
sonnet than the lines in the Second Anniversarie:
Where thou shalt see the blessed Mother-maid
Joy in not being that, which men have said.
Where she is exalted more for being good,
Then for her interest of Mother-hood.
Of the next three poems (20, 21, 22 on the list), the second,
the Ode beginning 'Vengeance will sit above our faults', seems
to me very doubtful, although on second thoughts I have
re-transferred it from the Appendix to the place among the
Divine Poems which it occupies in 1635. Against its authenticity
are the following considerations: (1) It is not at all in
the style of Donne's other specifically religious poems. The
elevated, stoical tone is more like Jonson's occasional religious
pieces than Donne's personal, tormented, Scholastic Divine
Poems. (2) Of the manuscripts in which it appears, B, Cy,
H40, RP31, O'F, P, S, the best, RP31,
assigns it, not to
Donne, but to 'Sir Edward Herbert', i.e. Lord Herbert of
Cherbury.17 Mr. Chambers, indeed, inadvertently stated that
in this manuscript 'it is said to have been written to George
Herbert'. The name 'Sr Edw. Herbert' is written beside
the poem, and that in such cases is meant to indicate the
author of the poem. It seems to me quite possible that it was
written by Lord Herbert, but until more evidence be forthcoming
I have let it stand, because (1) the letters 'I. D.' printed
after the poem show that the poem must have been so initialled
in the manuscript from which it was printed, and (2) because,
though not in the style of Donne's later religious poems, it is
somewhat in the style of the philosophical, stoical letter which
Donne addressed to Sir Edward Herbert at the siege of Juliers
in 1610. The poem was possibly composed at the same time.
(3) The thought of the last verse, our ignorance of ourselves,
recurs in Donne's poems and prose. Compare Negative Love
(p. 66):
If any who deciphers best,
What we know not, our selves,
and the passage quoted in the note to this poem.
The poem Upon the translation of the Psalmes by Sir
Philip Sydney, and the Countesse of Pembroke his Sister, if
by Donne, was probably written late in his life and never
widely circulated. It occurred to me that the author might be
John Davies of Hereford, who was a dependent of the Countess
and her two sons, and who made a calligraphic copy of
the Psalms of Sidney and his sister, from which they were
printed by Singer in 1823. But Professor Saintsbury considers,
I think justly, that the 'wit' of the opening lines,
Eternall God (for whom who ever dare
Seeke new expressions, doe the Circle square,
And thrust into strait corners of poore wit
Thee who art cornerlesse and infinite),
is above Davies' level, and indeed the whole poem is. The
lines To Mr. Tilman after he had taken orders (22 on the
list) were also probably privately communicated to the person
to whom they were addressed. The best argument for their
genuineness is that Walton seems to quote from them when
he describes Donne's preaching.
For they doe
As Angels out of clouds, from Pulpits speake,
must have suggested 'always preaching to himself, like an
angel from a cloud, but in none'. This does not, however,
carry us very far. Walton had seen the editions of 1635 and
1639 before he wrote these lines in 1640.
The verse On the Sacrament (23 on the list) is probably
assigned to Donne by a pure conjecture. It is very frequently
attributed to Queen Elizabeth.
Of the two poems added in 1649 the lines Upon Mr.
Thomas Coryats Crudities are of course Donne's. They
appeared with his name in his lifetime, and Donne is one of
the friends mentioned by Coryat in his letters from India.
The Token (4 on the list) may or may not be Donne's. It
is found in several, but no very good, manuscripts. Its wit
is quite in Donne's style, though not absolutely beyond the
compass of another. The poems which the younger Donne
added in 1650 are in much the same position. 'He that cannot
chose but love' (5 on the list) is a trifle, whoever wrote it.
'The heavens rejoice in motion' (10 on the list) is in a much
stronger strain of paradox, and if not Donne's is by an ambitious
and witty disciple. If genuine, it is strange that it did not find
its way into more collections. It is found in A10, where a few
of Donne's poems are given with others by Roe, Hoskins, and
other wits of his circle. It is also, however, given in JC, a
manuscript containing in its first part few poems that are not
demonstrably genuine. As things stand, the balance of evidence
is in favour of Donne's authorship.
Besides the Elegies XVIII and XIX, which are Donne's, as
we have seen, and the Satyre 'Sleep next Society', which is
not Donne's, the edition of 1669 prefixed to the song Breake
of Day a fresh stanza:
Stay, O sweet, and do not rise.
It appears in the same position in S96, but is given as a separate
poem in A25, C, O'F, and P. It certainly has no
connexion
with Donne's poem, for the metre is entirely different and the
strain of the poetry less metaphysical.
The separate stanza was a favourite one in Song-Books of
the seventeenth century. It was printed apparently for the
first time in 1612, in The First Set of Madrigals and Motets
of five Parts: apt for Viols and Voices. Newly composed
by Orlando Gibbons. Here it begins
Ah, deare hart why doe you rise?
In the same year it was printed in A Pilgrimes Solace.
Wherein is contained Musicall Harmonie of 3, 4 and 5
parts, to be sung and plaid with the Lute and Viols. By
John Dowland. The stanza begins
Sweet stay awhile, why will you rise?
Mr. Chambers conjectures that the affixing of Dowland's
initials to the verse in some collection led to Donne being
credited with it, which is quite likely; but we are not sure
that Dowland wrote it, and the common theme appears to have
drawn the poems together. In The Academy of Complements,
Wherein Ladies, Gentlewomen, Schollers, and Strangers may
accomodate their Courtly practice with gentile Ceremonies,
Complemental amorous high expressions, and Formes of
speaking or writing of Letters most in fashion (1650) the
verse is connected with a variation of the first stanza of Donne's
poem so as to make a consistent song:
Lie still, my dear, why dost thou rise?
The light that shines comes from thine eyes.
The day breaks not, it is my heart,
Because that you and I must part.
Stay or else my joys will die,
And perish in their infancy.
'Tis time, 'tis day, what if it be?
Wilt thou therefore arise from me?
Did we lie down because of night,
And shall we rise for fear of light?
No, since in darkness we came hither,
In spight of light we'll lye together.
Oh! let me dye on thy sweet breast
Far sweeter than the Phœnix nest.
It was probably some such combination as this which
suggested to the editor of 1669 to prefix the stanza to Donne's
poem. The poem in The Academy of Compliments was
repeated in Wits Interpreter, the English Parnassus, a
sure guide to those Admirable Accomplishments that
compleat our English Gentry in the most acceptable Qualifications
of Discourse or Writing (1655). But the first stanza
is given again in this collection as a separate poem.
The translation of the Psalme 137, which was inserted in
1633 and never withdrawn (as the Epitaph on Shakespeare
was) is pretty certainly not by Donne. The only manuscript
which ascribes it to him is A25 followed by C. On the other
hand it is assigned to Francis Davison, editor of the Poetical
Rhapsody, in RP61 (Bodleian Library). In one manuscript,
Addl. MS. 27407, the poem is accompanied with a letter, unsigned
and undirected, which speaks of this as one out of several
translations made by the author. The handwriting and style
of the letter are not Donne's, but the letter explains why this
one Psalm is found floating around by itself. It was, the
translator says, a freer paraphrase than the others. Apparently
it proved a favourite.
When one turns from the poems attributed to Donne in the
old editions to those which some of the more recent editors
have added, one launches into a sea which I have no intention
of attempting to navigate in its entirety. Both Sir John
Simeon and Dr. Grosart were disposed to cry 'Eureka' too
readily, and assigned to Donne a number of poems culled from
various manuscripts for the genuineness of which there is no
evidence external or internal. I shall confine my remarks to
the few poems I have myself incorporated for the first time in
an edition of Donne's poems; to the Song 'Absence hear
my protestation', which it is now the fashion to ascribe to
Donne absolutely, letting evidence 'go hang'; and to the four
poems which Mr. Chambers printed from A25. I have added
some more in my Appendix C, because they are interesting
ἀδέσποτα illustrative of the influence in seventeenth-century
poetry of Donne's realistic passion and his paradoxical wit.
Of the poems which appear here for the first time in a
collected edition, it is not necessary to say much of those which
are taken from W, the Westmoreland MS. now in the possession
of Mr. Gosse, who with the greatest and most spontaneous
kindness has permitted me to print them all. These include
two Epigrams, four additional Letters, and three Holy Sonnets.
The Epigrams, the Holy Sonnets, and two of the Letters have
been already printed by Mr. Gosse in his Life of John Donne,
1899. There can be no doubt of their genuineness. They enlarge
a series of Letters and a series of Sonnets which appear in 1633
and in all the best manuscript collections. In their arrangement
I have followed W in preference to 1633, which is based on
A18,
N, TC. Of the letter taken from the Burley MS. there may
be greater doubt in some minds. To me it seems unquestionably
Donne's (aut Donne aut Diabolus), an addition to the series of
letters which he wrote to Sir Henry Wotton between the return
of the Islands Expedition and Essex's return from Ireland. The
Burley MS. is a commonplace-book of Wotton's and includes
poems which we know as Donne's, e.g. 'Come, Madam, come';
some of his Paradoxes with a covering letter; other letters
which from their substance and style seem to be Donne's; and
a number of poems, including this which alone of all the
doubtful poems in the manuscript is initialled 'J. D.' The
manuscript contains work by Donne. Does this come under
that head? Only internal evidence can decide. Of the other
poems in the manuscript, most of which I print in Appendix C,
none are certainly Donne's.
'Absence heare my protestation' was printed in Donne's
lifetime in Davison's A Poetical Rhapsody (1602, 1608, 1621),
but with no reference to Donne's authorship, although his
name was yearly growing a more popular hostel for wandering,
unclaimed poems.18 It was not printed in any edition of his
poems from 1633 to 1719. It is not found in either of the most
trustworthy manuscript collections, D, H49, Lec, or
A18, N,
TC. It is found in B, Cy, L74, O'F,
P, S96, but none of
these can be counted an authority. In 1711 it was for the
first time ascribed to Donne in The Grove, a miscellaneous
collection of poems, on the authority of 'an old Manuscript
of Sir John Cotton's of Stratton in Huntington-Shire'. On the
other hand, in one well authenticated manuscript, HN, it is
transcribed by William Drummond of Hawthornden from what
he describes as a collection of poems 'belonging to John Don'
(not 'by Donne'), and, with another poem, is initialled 'J. H.'
That other poem called
His Melancholy.
Love is a foolish melancholy, &c.,
is by a Manchester manuscript (Farmer-Chetham MS., ed.
Grosart, Chetham Society Publications, lxxxix, xc) assigned
to 'Mr. Hoskins', and in another manuscript (A10) it is signed
'H' with the left leg of H so written as to suggest JH run
together. Clearly at any rate the onus probandi lies with
those who say the poem is by Donne. Internally it has never
seemed to me so since I came to know Donne well. The
metaphysical, subtle strain is like Donne, as it is in Soules Joy,
but here as there (though there is more feeling in Absence, the
closing line has a very Donne-like note of sudden anguish, 'and
so miss her') the tone is airier, the prosody more tripping.
The stressed syllables are less weighted emotionally and vocally.
Compare
Sweetest love, I do not goe,
For wearinesse of thee
Nor in hope the world can show
A fitter Love for me;
or
Draw not up seas to drowne me in thy spheare,
Weepe me not dead, in thine armes, but forbeare
To teach the sea, what it may doe too soone;
with the more tripping measure, in which one touches the
stressed syllables as with tiptoe, of
By absence this good means I gaine,
That I can catch her
Where none can watch her,
In some close corner of my braine.
There are more of Hoskins' poems extant, but the manuscript
volume of poems which he left behind ('bigger than those
of Dr. Donne') was lost in 1653.
Four poems were first printed as Donne's by Mr. Chambers
(op. cit., Appendix B). They are all found in Addl. MS.
25707 (A25), and, so far as I know, there only. I have placed
them first in Appendix C, as the only pieces in that Appendix
which are at all likely to be by Donne. A25 is a manuscript
written in a number of different hands, some six within the
portion that includes poems by Donne. The relative age
of these it would be impossible to assign with any confidence.
What looks the oldest (I may call it A) is used only for three
poems, viz. Donne's Elegye: 'What [sic] that in Color it was
like thy haire,' his Obsequies Upon the Lord Harrington yt
last died, and the Elegie of Loves progresse. It is in Elizabethan
secretary's hand, and seems to me identical with the
writing in which the same poems are copied in C, the Cambridge
University Library MS. A second hand, B, inserts the
larger number of the poems unquestionably by Donne in close
succession, but a third hand, C, transcribes several by Donne
along with poems by other wits, as Francis Beaumont. A
fourth hand, D, seems to be the latest because it is the
handwriting in which the Index was made out, and the poems
inserted in this hand are inserted in odd spaces left by the other
writers. Now of the poems in question, one, A letter written
by Sr H: G: and J. D. alternis vicibus, is copied by D, and
the same hand adds immediately An Elegie on the Death of
my never enough Lamented master King Charles the First,
by Henry Skipwith. The poem attributed to Donne was
therefore not entered here till after 1649. But of course it may
have come from an older source, and it has quite the appearance
of being genuine. Whoever made the collection would seem
to have had access to some of Goodyere's work, for this poem
is almost immediately preceded by an Epithalamion of the
Princess Mariage, by Sr H. G., and a little earlier the Good
Friday poem by Donne is headed Mr J. Dun goeing from
Sir H. G. on good friday sent him back this Meditacon on the
waye. That reads like a note by Goodyere himself. If this be
what happened, the copyist may have ascribed to Donne some
of Goodyere's own verses. Certainly there is nothing in the
other three poems, 'O Fruitful garden,' 'Fie, fie, you sons of
Pallas,' 'Why chose she black' (all in the handwriting C)
which would warrant our ascribing them to Donne. Later in
the collection a coarse poem, 'Why should not Pilgrims to thy
body come,' in a fifth hand, is signed J. D., but P assigns it to
F. B., and it is more in Beaumont's style. Poems by and on
Beaumont occupy a considerable space in A25. He is a quite
possible candidate for the authorship of some of the poems
assigned to Donne in the hand C.
Mr. Hazlitt attributes to Donne (General Index to Hazlitt's
Handbook, &c., p. 228) a Funeral Elegie on the death of Philip
Stanhope, who died at Christ Church in 1625. I have not
been able to find the volume in which it appears; but, as it is
said to be by John Donne Alumnus, the author must be the
younger Donne.
That I may grow enamoured on your mind,
When my own thoughts I there reflected find,
When my own thoughts I there neglected find