' 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.
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.
John Donne
It cannot
be said that he always recorded accurately the readings of
the manuscript from which he printed. I have made no effort to
record all the differences between Grosart's text and my own.
The description of the editions which Grosart gives at ii, p.
liii is amazingly inaccurate, considering that he claimed to
have collated 'all the early and later printed editions'. He
describes _1639_, _1649_, _1650_, and _1654_ as identical
with one another, and declares that the younger Donne is
responsible only for _1669_, which appeared after his death. ]
[Footnote 37: _The Poems of John Donne From The Text of The
Edition of 1633 Revised By James Russell Lowell With The
Various Readings of The Other Editions Of The Seventeenth
Century, And With A Preface, An Introduction, And Notes By
Charles Eliot Norton. New York. _ 1895. In preparing the
text from Lowell's copy of _1633_, emended in pencil by him,
Professor Norton was assisted by Mrs. Burnett, the daughter
of Mr. Lowell. As I could not apportion the responsibility for
the text I have spoken throughout my textual notes and remarks
of 'the Grolier Club editor' (_Grolier_ for short). I
have accepted Professor Norton as the sole author of the
commentary. For instances where the punctuation has been
altered, and the meaning, in my opinion, obscured, I may refer
to the textual notes on _The Legacie_ (p. 20), _The Dreame_
(p. 37), _A nocturnall upon S. Lucies day_ (p. 45). But I have
cited and discussed most of the cases in which I disagree with
the Grolier Club editors. It is for readers to judge whether
at times they may not be right, and I have gone astray.
The Grolier Club edition only came into my hands when I had
completed my first collation of the printed texts. Had I known
it sooner, or had the edition been more accessible, I should
probably not have ventured on the arduous task of editing
Donne. It is based on the best text, and the editors have been
happier than most in their interpretation and punctuation of
the more difficult passages.
Professor Norton made no use of the manuscripts in preparing
the text, but he added in an appendix an account of the
manuscript which, following him, I have called _N_, and
he gave a list of variants which seemed to him possible
emendations. Later, in the _Child Memorial Volume_ of _Studies
and Notes in Philology and Literature_ (1896), he gave a
somewhat fuller description of _N_ and descriptions of _S_
(the Stephens MS. ) and _Cy_ (the Carnaby MS. ). Of the readings
which Professor Norton noted, several have passed into
my edition on the authority of a wider collation of the
manuscripts. ]
[Footnote 38: _Poems of John Donne Edited By E. K. Chambers.
With An Introduction By George Saintsbury. London and New
York. 1896. _ Of the editions Mr. Chambers says: 'Nor can it be
said that any one edition always gives the best text; even
for a single poem, sometimes one, sometimes another is to be
preferred, though, as a rule, the edition of _1633_ is the
most reliable, and the readings of _1669_ are in many cases a
return to it' (vol. i, p. xliv). A considerable portion of Mr.
Chambers' edition would seem to have been 'set up' from a copy
of the 1639 edition, the earlier and later readings being then
either incorporated or recorded. The result is that the _1633_
or _1633-35_ readings have been more than once overlooked.
This applies especially to the _Epicedes_ and the _Divine
Poems_.
As with the Grolier Club edition, so with Mr. Chambers'
edition, I have recorded and discussed the chief differences
between my text and his. I have worked with his edition
constantly beside me. I used it for my collations on account
of its convenient numbering of the lines. To Mr. Chambers'
commentary also I owe my first introduction to the wide field
of the manuscripts. His knowledge of seventeenth-century
literature and history, which even in 1896 was extensive, has
directed me in taking up most of the questions of canon and
authorship which I have investigated. It is easy to record
one's points of disagreement with a predecessor; it is more
difficult to estimate accurately how much one owes to his
labours.
Mr. Chambers, too, has 'modernized the spelling and corrected
the exceptionally chaotic punctuation of the old editions'.
Of the latter changes he has, with one or two exceptions,
preserved no record, so that when, as is sometimes the case,
he has misunderstood the poet, it is impossible to get back to
the original text of which the stops as well as the words are
a part. ]
[Footnote 39: It is very unlikely that Donne had in his
possession when he died manuscript copies of his early poems.
(1) Walton makes no mention of them when enumerating the works
which Donne left behind in manuscript, including 'six score
sermons all written with his own hand; also an exact
and laborious treatise concerning self-murder, called
_Biathanatos'_, as well as elaborate notes on authors and
events. (2) In 1614, when Donne thought of publishing his
poems, he found it necessary to beg for copies from his
friends: 'By this occasion I am made a Rhapsoder of mine own
rags, and that cost me more diligence to seek them, then it
did to make them. This made me aske to borrow that old book
of you. ' _To Sir H. G. , Vigilia St. Tho. 1614. _ (3) Jonson
and Walton both tell us that Donne, after taking Orders, would
have been glad to destroy his early poems. The sincerity of
this wish has been doubted because of what he says in a letter
regarding _Biathanatos_: 'I only forbid it the press and the
fire. ' But _Biathanatos_ is a very different matter from
the poems. It is a grave and devout, if daring, treatise
in casuistry. No one can enter into Donne's mind from 1617
onwards, as ascetic devotion became a more and more sincere
and consuming passion, and believe that he kept copies of
the early poems or paradoxes, prepared for the press like his
sermons or devotions. ]
[Footnote 40: _Contributions To The Textual Criticism of
The Divina Commedia, &c. By the Rev. Edward Moore, D. D. , &c.
Cambridge, 1889. _ The tests which Dr. Moore lays down for the
judgement, on internal grounds, of a reading are--I state them
shortly in my own words--(1) That is the best reading which
best explains the erroneous readings. I have sometimes
recorded a quite impossible reading of a manuscript because it
clearly came from one rather than another of two rivals, and
thus lends support to that reading despite its own aberration.
(2) Generally speaking, 'Difficilior lectio potior,' the more
difficult reading is the more likely to be the original. This
applies forcibly in the case of a subtle and difficult author
like Donne. The majority of the changes made in the later
editions arise from the tendency to make Donne's thought more
commonplace. Even in _1633_ errors have crept in. The obsolete
words 'lation' (p. 94, l. 47), 'crosse' (p. 43, l. 14) have
been altered; the old-fashioned and metaphorically used idiom
'in Nature's gifts' has confused the editor's punctuation;
the subtle thought of the epistles has puzzled and misled. (3)
'Three minor considerations may be added which are often very
important, when applicable, though they are from the nature of
the case less frequently available. ' _Moore_. These are (_a_)
the consistency of the reading with sentiments expressed by
the author elsewhere. I have used the _Sermons_ and other
prose works to illustrate and check Donne's thought and
vocabulary throughout. (_b_) The relation of the reading
to the probable source of the poet's thought. A Scholastic
doctrine often lurks behind Donne's wit, ignorance of which
has led to corruption of the text. See _The Dreame_, p. 37,
ll. 7, 16; _To Sr Henry Wotton_, p. 180, ll. 17-18. (_c_) The
relation of a reading to historical fact. In the letter _To Sr
Henry Wotton_, p. 187, the editors, forgetting the facts, have
confused Cadiz with Calais, and the Azores with St. Michael's
Mount. ]
[Footnote 41: It is worth while to compare the kind of
mistakes in which a manuscript abounds with those which occur
in a printed edition. The tendency of the copyist was to write
on without paying much attention to the sense, dropping words
and lines, sometimes two consecutive half-lines or whole
stanzas, ignoring or confounding punctuation, mistaking words,
&c. He was, if a professional copyist or secretary, not very
apt to attempt emendation. The kind of errors he made were
easily detected when the proof was read over, or when the
manuscript was revised with a view to printing. Words or
half-lines could be restored, &c. But in such revision a new
and dangerous source of error comes into play, the tendency of
the editor to emend. ]
[Footnote 42: Take a few instances where the latest editor,
very naturally and explicably, securing at places a reading
more obvious and euphonious, has departed from _1633_ and
followed _1635_ or _1669_. I shall take them somewhat
at random and include a few that may seem still open to
discussion. In _The Undertaking_ (p. 10, l. 18), for 'Vertue
attir'd in woman see', _1633_, Mr. Chambers reads, with
_1635-69_, 'Vertue in woman see. ' So:
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. _
In all these passages, and I could cite others, it seems to
me (I have stated my reasons fully in the notes) that if the
sense of the passage be carefully considered, or Donne's use
of words (e. g. 'mis-devotion'), or the tenor of his thought,
the reading of _1633_ is either clearly correct or has much
to be said for it. Now in all these cases the reading has the
support of all the manuscripts, or of the most and the best. ]
[Footnote 43: e. g. 'their nothing' p. 31, l. 53; 'reclaim'd'
p. 56, l. 25; 'sport' p. 56, l. 27. ]
[Footnote 44: The _1633_ text of these letters, which is
generally that of _A18_, _N_, _TC_, is better than I was at
one time disposed to think, though there are some indubitable
errors and perhaps some original variants. The crucial reading
is at p. 197, l. 58, where _1633_ and _A18_, _N_, _TC_ read
'not naturally free', while _1635-69_ and _O'F_ read 'borne
naturally free', at first sight an easier and more natural
text, and adopted by both Chambers and Grosart. But
consideration of the passage, and of what Donne says
elsewhere, shows that the _1633_ reading is certainly right. ]
[Footnote 45: The _1650_ printer delighted in colons, which he
generally substituted for semicolons indiscriminately. ]
CANON.
The authenticity of all the poems ascribed to Donne in the old
editions is a question which has never been systematically and fully
considered by his editors and critics. A number of poems not included
in these editions have been attributed to him by Simeon (1856),
Grosart (1873), and others on very insufficient grounds, whether of
external evidence or internal probability. Of the poems published in
_1633_, one, Basse's _An Epitaph upon Shakespeare_, was withdrawn at
once; another, the metrical _Psalme 137_, has been discredited and
Chambers drops it. [1] Of those which were added in _1635_, one _To Ben
Ionson. 6 Ian. 1603_, has been dropped by Grosart, the Grolier Club
edition, and Chambers on the strength of a statement made to Drummond
by Ben Jonson. [2] But the editors have accepted Jonson's statement
without apparently giving any thought to the question whether, if this
particular poem is by Roe, the same must not be true of its companion
pieces, _To Ben. Ionson. 9 Novembris, 1603_. and _To Sir Tho. Roe.
1603_. They are inserted together in _1635_, and are strikingly
similar in heading, in style, and in verse. Nor has any critic, so far
as I know, taken up the larger question raised by rejecting one of the
poems ascribed to Donne in _1635_, namely, are not all the poems
then added made thereby to some extent suspect, and if so can we
distinguish those which are from those which are not genuine? I
propose then to discuss, in the light afforded by a wider and more
connected survey of the seventeenth-century manuscript collections,
the authenticity of the poems ascribed to Donne in the old editions,
and to ask what, if any, poems may be added to those there published.
For this discussion an invaluable starting-point is afforded by the
edition of 1633, the manuscript group _D_, _H49_, _Lec_, and the
manuscript group _A18_, _N_, _TCC_, _TCD_. Taken together, and used to
check one another, these three collections provide us with a _corpus_
of indubitable poems which may be used as a test by which to try other
claimants. 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. )
_1635. _ On himselfe.
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, o 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, o 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 which[6] 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:
XXXII.
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.
be said that he always recorded accurately the readings of
the manuscript from which he printed. I have made no effort to
record all the differences between Grosart's text and my own.
The description of the editions which Grosart gives at ii, p.
liii is amazingly inaccurate, considering that he claimed to
have collated 'all the early and later printed editions'. He
describes _1639_, _1649_, _1650_, and _1654_ as identical
with one another, and declares that the younger Donne is
responsible only for _1669_, which appeared after his death. ]
[Footnote 37: _The Poems of John Donne From The Text of The
Edition of 1633 Revised By James Russell Lowell With The
Various Readings of The Other Editions Of The Seventeenth
Century, And With A Preface, An Introduction, And Notes By
Charles Eliot Norton. New York. _ 1895. In preparing the
text from Lowell's copy of _1633_, emended in pencil by him,
Professor Norton was assisted by Mrs. Burnett, the daughter
of Mr. Lowell. As I could not apportion the responsibility for
the text I have spoken throughout my textual notes and remarks
of 'the Grolier Club editor' (_Grolier_ for short). I
have accepted Professor Norton as the sole author of the
commentary. For instances where the punctuation has been
altered, and the meaning, in my opinion, obscured, I may refer
to the textual notes on _The Legacie_ (p. 20), _The Dreame_
(p. 37), _A nocturnall upon S. Lucies day_ (p. 45). But I have
cited and discussed most of the cases in which I disagree with
the Grolier Club editors. It is for readers to judge whether
at times they may not be right, and I have gone astray.
The Grolier Club edition only came into my hands when I had
completed my first collation of the printed texts. Had I known
it sooner, or had the edition been more accessible, I should
probably not have ventured on the arduous task of editing
Donne. It is based on the best text, and the editors have been
happier than most in their interpretation and punctuation of
the more difficult passages.
Professor Norton made no use of the manuscripts in preparing
the text, but he added in an appendix an account of the
manuscript which, following him, I have called _N_, and
he gave a list of variants which seemed to him possible
emendations. Later, in the _Child Memorial Volume_ of _Studies
and Notes in Philology and Literature_ (1896), he gave a
somewhat fuller description of _N_ and descriptions of _S_
(the Stephens MS. ) and _Cy_ (the Carnaby MS. ). Of the readings
which Professor Norton noted, several have passed into
my edition on the authority of a wider collation of the
manuscripts. ]
[Footnote 38: _Poems of John Donne Edited By E. K. Chambers.
With An Introduction By George Saintsbury. London and New
York. 1896. _ Of the editions Mr. Chambers says: 'Nor can it be
said that any one edition always gives the best text; even
for a single poem, sometimes one, sometimes another is to be
preferred, though, as a rule, the edition of _1633_ is the
most reliable, and the readings of _1669_ are in many cases a
return to it' (vol. i, p. xliv). A considerable portion of Mr.
Chambers' edition would seem to have been 'set up' from a copy
of the 1639 edition, the earlier and later readings being then
either incorporated or recorded. The result is that the _1633_
or _1633-35_ readings have been more than once overlooked.
This applies especially to the _Epicedes_ and the _Divine
Poems_.
As with the Grolier Club edition, so with Mr. Chambers'
edition, I have recorded and discussed the chief differences
between my text and his. I have worked with his edition
constantly beside me. I used it for my collations on account
of its convenient numbering of the lines. To Mr. Chambers'
commentary also I owe my first introduction to the wide field
of the manuscripts. His knowledge of seventeenth-century
literature and history, which even in 1896 was extensive, has
directed me in taking up most of the questions of canon and
authorship which I have investigated. It is easy to record
one's points of disagreement with a predecessor; it is more
difficult to estimate accurately how much one owes to his
labours.
Mr. Chambers, too, has 'modernized the spelling and corrected
the exceptionally chaotic punctuation of the old editions'.
Of the latter changes he has, with one or two exceptions,
preserved no record, so that when, as is sometimes the case,
he has misunderstood the poet, it is impossible to get back to
the original text of which the stops as well as the words are
a part. ]
[Footnote 39: It is very unlikely that Donne had in his
possession when he died manuscript copies of his early poems.
(1) Walton makes no mention of them when enumerating the works
which Donne left behind in manuscript, including 'six score
sermons all written with his own hand; also an exact
and laborious treatise concerning self-murder, called
_Biathanatos'_, as well as elaborate notes on authors and
events. (2) In 1614, when Donne thought of publishing his
poems, he found it necessary to beg for copies from his
friends: 'By this occasion I am made a Rhapsoder of mine own
rags, and that cost me more diligence to seek them, then it
did to make them. This made me aske to borrow that old book
of you. ' _To Sir H. G. , Vigilia St. Tho. 1614. _ (3) Jonson
and Walton both tell us that Donne, after taking Orders, would
have been glad to destroy his early poems. The sincerity of
this wish has been doubted because of what he says in a letter
regarding _Biathanatos_: 'I only forbid it the press and the
fire. ' But _Biathanatos_ is a very different matter from
the poems. It is a grave and devout, if daring, treatise
in casuistry. No one can enter into Donne's mind from 1617
onwards, as ascetic devotion became a more and more sincere
and consuming passion, and believe that he kept copies of
the early poems or paradoxes, prepared for the press like his
sermons or devotions. ]
[Footnote 40: _Contributions To The Textual Criticism of
The Divina Commedia, &c. By the Rev. Edward Moore, D. D. , &c.
Cambridge, 1889. _ The tests which Dr. Moore lays down for the
judgement, on internal grounds, of a reading are--I state them
shortly in my own words--(1) That is the best reading which
best explains the erroneous readings. I have sometimes
recorded a quite impossible reading of a manuscript because it
clearly came from one rather than another of two rivals, and
thus lends support to that reading despite its own aberration.
(2) Generally speaking, 'Difficilior lectio potior,' the more
difficult reading is the more likely to be the original. This
applies forcibly in the case of a subtle and difficult author
like Donne. The majority of the changes made in the later
editions arise from the tendency to make Donne's thought more
commonplace. Even in _1633_ errors have crept in. The obsolete
words 'lation' (p. 94, l. 47), 'crosse' (p. 43, l. 14) have
been altered; the old-fashioned and metaphorically used idiom
'in Nature's gifts' has confused the editor's punctuation;
the subtle thought of the epistles has puzzled and misled. (3)
'Three minor considerations may be added which are often very
important, when applicable, though they are from the nature of
the case less frequently available. ' _Moore_. These are (_a_)
the consistency of the reading with sentiments expressed by
the author elsewhere. I have used the _Sermons_ and other
prose works to illustrate and check Donne's thought and
vocabulary throughout. (_b_) The relation of the reading
to the probable source of the poet's thought. A Scholastic
doctrine often lurks behind Donne's wit, ignorance of which
has led to corruption of the text. See _The Dreame_, p. 37,
ll. 7, 16; _To Sr Henry Wotton_, p. 180, ll. 17-18. (_c_) The
relation of a reading to historical fact. In the letter _To Sr
Henry Wotton_, p. 187, the editors, forgetting the facts, have
confused Cadiz with Calais, and the Azores with St. Michael's
Mount. ]
[Footnote 41: It is worth while to compare the kind of
mistakes in which a manuscript abounds with those which occur
in a printed edition. The tendency of the copyist was to write
on without paying much attention to the sense, dropping words
and lines, sometimes two consecutive half-lines or whole
stanzas, ignoring or confounding punctuation, mistaking words,
&c. He was, if a professional copyist or secretary, not very
apt to attempt emendation. The kind of errors he made were
easily detected when the proof was read over, or when the
manuscript was revised with a view to printing. Words or
half-lines could be restored, &c. But in such revision a new
and dangerous source of error comes into play, the tendency of
the editor to emend. ]
[Footnote 42: Take a few instances where the latest editor,
very naturally and explicably, securing at places a reading
more obvious and euphonious, has departed from _1633_ and
followed _1635_ or _1669_. I shall take them somewhat
at random and include a few that may seem still open to
discussion. In _The Undertaking_ (p. 10, l. 18), for 'Vertue
attir'd in woman see', _1633_, Mr. Chambers reads, with
_1635-69_, 'Vertue in woman see. ' So:
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. _
In all these passages, and I could cite others, it seems to
me (I have stated my reasons fully in the notes) that if the
sense of the passage be carefully considered, or Donne's use
of words (e. g. 'mis-devotion'), or the tenor of his thought,
the reading of _1633_ is either clearly correct or has much
to be said for it. Now in all these cases the reading has the
support of all the manuscripts, or of the most and the best. ]
[Footnote 43: e. g. 'their nothing' p. 31, l. 53; 'reclaim'd'
p. 56, l. 25; 'sport' p. 56, l. 27. ]
[Footnote 44: The _1633_ text of these letters, which is
generally that of _A18_, _N_, _TC_, is better than I was at
one time disposed to think, though there are some indubitable
errors and perhaps some original variants. The crucial reading
is at p. 197, l. 58, where _1633_ and _A18_, _N_, _TC_ read
'not naturally free', while _1635-69_ and _O'F_ read 'borne
naturally free', at first sight an easier and more natural
text, and adopted by both Chambers and Grosart. But
consideration of the passage, and of what Donne says
elsewhere, shows that the _1633_ reading is certainly right. ]
[Footnote 45: The _1650_ printer delighted in colons, which he
generally substituted for semicolons indiscriminately. ]
CANON.
The authenticity of all the poems ascribed to Donne in the old
editions is a question which has never been systematically and fully
considered by his editors and critics. A number of poems not included
in these editions have been attributed to him by Simeon (1856),
Grosart (1873), and others on very insufficient grounds, whether of
external evidence or internal probability. Of the poems published in
_1633_, one, Basse's _An Epitaph upon Shakespeare_, was withdrawn at
once; another, the metrical _Psalme 137_, has been discredited and
Chambers drops it. [1] Of those which were added in _1635_, one _To Ben
Ionson. 6 Ian. 1603_, has been dropped by Grosart, the Grolier Club
edition, and Chambers on the strength of a statement made to Drummond
by Ben Jonson. [2] But the editors have accepted Jonson's statement
without apparently giving any thought to the question whether, if this
particular poem is by Roe, the same must not be true of its companion
pieces, _To Ben. Ionson. 9 Novembris, 1603_. and _To Sir Tho. Roe.
1603_. They are inserted together in _1635_, and are strikingly
similar in heading, in style, and in verse. Nor has any critic, so far
as I know, taken up the larger question raised by rejecting one of the
poems ascribed to Donne in _1635_, namely, are not all the poems
then added made thereby to some extent suspect, and if so can we
distinguish those which are from those which are not genuine? I
propose then to discuss, in the light afforded by a wider and more
connected survey of the seventeenth-century manuscript collections,
the authenticity of the poems ascribed to Donne in the old editions,
and to ask what, if any, poems may be added to those there published.
For this discussion an invaluable starting-point is afforded by the
edition of 1633, the manuscript group _D_, _H49_, _Lec_, and the
manuscript group _A18_, _N_, _TCC_, _TCD_. Taken together, and used to
check one another, these three collections provide us with a _corpus_
of indubitable poems which may be used as a test by which to try other
claimants. 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. )
_1635. _ On himselfe.
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, o 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, o 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 which[6] 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:
XXXII.
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.
