| ||
In 1776, Thomas Becket published A Poetical Epistle from the
Late Lord Melcombe to the Earl of Bute: With Corrections, by the Author
of the Night Thoughts.[1]
George Bubb Dodington, Lord Melcombe, though better known as a
politician and patron, dabbled in poetry while at Oxford before entering
politics and returned to it throughout his career. Although he published few
poems, these have not slipped unnoticed from the press. His An
Epistle to Sir Robert Walpole (1725) was reprinted in London and
Dublin; his "On Sir Robert Walpole's Birth-Day" was reprinted in
Dodsley's A Collection of Poems by Several Hands; and his
ode
"Shorten Sail," to be discussed below, was anthologized in our own
century.[2] He had been a friend,
collaborator, and patron of the poet Edward Young, the author of
The
Complaint
Becket's publication consists of a brief publisher's advertisement, the Proem, the Epistle proper, and a series of footnotes to both sets of verses. In the advertisement, while insisting on his source's authenticity, Becket offered a vague description of the manuscript: "To preclude every Doubt, concerning it's Authenticity, the Original Manuscript, in Lord Melcombe's Hand-writing, with the Corrections, in That of Dr. Young, is left for Inspection at the Shop of the Publisher." The 70-line Proem is addressed to John Stuart (1713-1792), the third Earl of Bute, styled Pollio in the poem (pp. 1-5); in it, Dodington eulogizes the virtues of his deceased friend John Duke of Argyll, Bute's maternal uncle. The Epistle offers 294 lines on wisdom and cunning and their consequences (pp. 7-25), which briefly address the youthful Pollio in the opening and refer to the young King George III in the close. The texts of both the Proem and the Epistle have respectively 21 and 50 readings in italic, varying in length from a word (38 of the total) to a couplet, preceded by a number that refers to alternate readings at the foot. Becket does not indicate what the footnotes represent.
The reader may well suppose that the text is entirely Dodington's original with Young's corrections placed in the footnotes. However, it is also possible that Becket printed the revised text incorporating Young's suggestions and that he placed Dodington's rejected original readings in the footnotes. Several authors have assumed that the footnotes contain Young's revisions, including a writer for The Critical Review, Lloyd Sanders (Dodington's biographer), and Harold Forster (Young's biographer).[4] That ascription, I
Although Becket's printer's copy has been lost, the Lewis Walpole Library of Yale University possesses a manuscript version of the Epistle to Bute bound with a signed autograph letter from Young to Dodington dated 17 October 1761 and referring to the poem. The poetical manuscript, which I will argue postdates that version printed in 1776, and the letter from Young to Dodington dated 17 October 1761, along with another dated 6 October 1761, substantiate most of Becket's claims for his source. However, these documents question Becket's claim that his copy "bears [the] Date the 26th of October 1761" or at least deny that date's accuracy. For, as I shall argue, the letter dated 6 October accompanied the return of a corrected manuscript (presumably that printed by Becket), and the second, dated 17 October, refers to a later version of the Epistle to Bute than that reprinted by Becket.[6] The poetical manuscript at the Lewis Walpole Library (LWL), though it has received little attention and never been printed, conflates the readings in both the text and footnotes of Becket's edition. By examining the printed text and its footnotes, the manuscript version of the poem, and several of Young's letters relating to the poem and to another of Dodington's poetical compositions, we are able to understand much about Dodington's composition and Young's collaboration. This examination will also answer the great question raised by the Becket edition, indicating which of Young's suggestions were incorporated by the author.
The LWL manuscript, bound with a front endpaper and Young's letter of 17 October, is written throughout in the same scribal hand on 16 numbered folio pages. The proem is prefaced by the head-title, 'Of Wisdom & Cunning | & their Consequences | True & False Greatness | Lord M. to the Earl of Bute. &c | Quos irrupta [sic] tenet Copula. Hor:' [.][7] Above the title,
These notes assert that the Epistle proper was largely composed long before 1761. Although the first note does not explicitly say this epistle is the same as another addressed to Sir Robert, "also" in the second note might imply such. Furthermore, Horace Walpole noted in the margins of his copy of Dodington's Diary (1784) that Wyndham "wrote to Joseph Warton in 1784 that he had found among Dodington's papers an old copy of the poem, but inscribed to Sir Robert Walpole."[10] However, it is possible that Wyndham confused the epistle later sent to Bute with a fair copy of Dodington's
Sanders, knowing of the manuscript now at LWL, assumed the footnotes of the 1776 edition were Young's revisions and concluded that the LWL manuscript "apparently represents the form in which Melcombe wished his 'Epistle' should be given to the world, because many of Young's emendations have been adopted in it [the LWL manuscript], while others have been discarded" (p. 260). Sanders, who misdates the edition "1766," does not offer any textual evidence that the notes contain Young's readings, but his assessment seems correct.
With and without reference to the manuscript, one can find evidence in the edition to argue Young's alterations are in the notes. The footnote to the word "narrows" in line 28 of the Epistle ("narrows" is also the LWL manuscript reading) is "strangles, or smothers." It seems more likely that Young offered two alternate readings than that Dodington had. Also, a few footnotes with readings shared by the manuscript are obvious corrections, like the replacement of the unidiomatic "in prey" with "a Prey" at line 29 of the Epistle. Although the footnoted readings contain no additions and are nearly all rephrasings, some of these verbal alterations seem characteristic of Young, and none are uncharacteristic. At line 32 of the Epistle, where the manuscript and footnotes share the word "Toils," the printed text has "Moyls," which is a word very uncommon, if ever present, in Young's writings. The footnote reading "These Fiends" referring to personified emotions and conditions resembles Young's calling sorrow "that foul Fiend" in Resignation, written within a year of this revision.[11] The best stylistic evidence involves twelve footnotes making substitutions for the relative conjunction and pronoun "that," in nine instances with "which." (The manuscript accepted ten of the changes, rejecting the use of "It" in Epistle, line 44, and "which" in Proem, line 38). Although Young often used 'That' as a demonstrative, he rarely used it as a relative pronoun. For example, in the first 708 lines of the second edition of Resignation, "that" appears as a relative five times, half as often as it is used as an adjective and demonstrative pronoun; whereas, "which" is employed as a relative pronoun twenty-one times.
Although it cannot identify who did what, textual criticism can show that the manuscript represents a version later than that published, one incorporating readings from both the printed text and footnotes and introducing others not found in either source. In the 71 passages with variant readings between the printed text and the footnotes, the LWL manuscript shares substantive readings with the footnotes on 47 occasions, shares all but one substantive (taken from the printed text) with the footnotes on 1 occasion, and shares or largely shares the substantives of the printed text on 22 others.[12] In the remaining case, Epistle, lines 45-46 (discussed below), it divides its fidelity equally between the printed text and footnotes. On four pages all the footnoted readings are like the manuscript's, but on one page with seven footnotes (page 3) all the readings in the poetic text are more like the manuscript's. If the LWL manuscript had preceded the copy Young corrected, the press would have had to have inconsistently placed Young's and Dodington's readings. For example, on pages B1r and B1v in both the printed text and the footnotes individual lines agree with and differ from those on manuscript pages five and six. This varying conformity cannot be explained by any division of work (by manuscript pages or by printed formes or pages) between one or more compositors confused about where to put Dodington's original readings and Young's emendations.[13]
Furthermore, variant readings to lines 45-46 of the Epistle found in the printed text, printed footnotes, and the LWL manuscript can best be understood by assuming the manuscript to be an eclectic text produced from the text and annotations printed in 1776:
And Genius quickens what Reflection weighs.
(printed text; my italics here and below)
And Genius bright'ning what Reflection weighs.
(footnote)
And Genius brightens what Reflection weighs.
(LWL manuscript)
That the LWL manuscript reflects the author's final intentions seems likely to judge from the quality of its variants. In revising to compose the LWL version, Dodington chose the better of at least several alternatives offered by his original text (extant as the printed text) and Young's emended version (extant as the footnotes). For example, lines 9-10 of the Proem have a faulty rhyme in the printed text that the footnote corrects with a simple shift of words. One cannot imagine anyone proposing the printed text as a correction for the footnote:
Revive his Grace, his Dignity, and Ease; (printed text)
Recall his Ease, and Dignity, and Grace; (footnote)
Thy bright Example marks and lights the way. (printed text)
To Wisdom point, and light us on our way. (footnote)
Before supporting the likelihood of Dodington's accepting Young's corrections, I would digress to argue the improbability of the LWL manuscript being the product, not of Dodington, but of an editor possessing the manuscript that Young annotated. This possibility need be admitted since the LWL manuscript is not a Dodington autograph to judge from comparison of it with autographs of Dodington's diaries, parliamentary speeches, and letters.[16] If only because of Young's contemporary status, it seems more likely that an owner editing the annotated manuscript would accept all Young's changes or none than that he would labor to produce an eclectic text. Moreover, the manuscript's being bound with Young's letter of 1761 suggests that it was produced for or by Dodington, as does Wyndham's possession of the manuscript in the 1780's. The modest abbreviation "Lord M." in its title suggests the manuscript was prepared for Dodington. And there are readings peculiar to the LWL manuscript, like the motto, requiring an unlikely boldness on the part of an editor. For example, in the Proem, line 38, the LWL manuscript has 'Hearts' where the printed text and footnotes have 'Soul'; in the Epistle, line 290, it has 'Virtue' where they have 'Glory'; and in the Epistle, line 14, it has 'Th'Imperial Murderer' where the printed text has 'The purple Murderer' and the footnote reads '[The] royal Butcher'.
Dodington's inclination to accept the majority of Young's suggestions while yet rejecting many others is also evident in the collaboration on Dodington's verses "Kind Companion." A week or so after receiving Young's final revisions of the Epistle to Bute, Dodington sent Young, perhaps partly in thanks, verses addressed to and commending Young, apparently along with
Where Omnipotence resides
Suppose it was thus
He who Parts & Virtue gave,
Bad thee Look beyond the Grave;
Genius Soars, & Virtue guides,
When the Love of God presides.
There's a Gulph twixt us, & God
Let the dreadfull Path be trod,
Why stand Shivring on the Shore? &c.
(Pettit, 551-552)
When published with the ode in The Public Advertiser of 23 August 1762, the prefatory verses contained in lines 7-13 almost all the changes Young had proposed on 29 October 1761. The published text agrees in all its substantives with that Young sent the Dutchess of Portland on 2 January 1763, claiming that Dodington had sent it to him "scarce a Month before his Death" (Pettit, 565-566). In this final version, Dodington did emend the line "Where Omnipotence resides" much as Young had suggested ("When the Love of God presides"), though he maintained "Where" for "When." The
When did Dodington compose the Proem to Bute and write or revise the Epistle? The facts of Dodington's friendship with Bute argue that the poetical gift would have been undertaken during the last half of 1761 or the first half of 1762. During 1761 Dodington's friendship with Bute cooled somewhat, but the two remained friends up until Dodington's death on 28 July 1762. Although there is much friendly correspondence between Dodington and Bute during the October when Young revised the poem, the two were not so close as Dodington wished them to be. On 13 April 1762, Dodington wrote Bute, "since the middle of the summer, I found such an alteration, not in your kindness, my dear Lord, but in your confidence, which would have been very grievous" but for Dodington's "unswerving attachment."[19] Dodington supposed he owed "the Diminuition of your [Bute's] Confidence to this false Impression" that Dodington was eager "to gett a Place." He insisted that he was too old to seek the wealth attendant to place. Subsequent correspondence grows increasingly cordial, and on 13 June 1762 Bute offered Dodington the Admiralty. Thus, the Epistle's high moral tone and belief in patriotic service would have served Dodington's need from June 1761 to June 1762 to reassure Bute of the author's motivations and abilities.
Young's letters to Dodington suggest that the LWL manuscript was produced between 6 and 17 October 1761. Also, the letters suggest that the collaboration was no more the product of friendship than the means to renew it. Young seems to have returned the corrected manuscript—presumably that used by Becket—with his letter of 6 October. Referring only generally to the poem, the letter implies Young's distance from, yet warmth toward, Dodington:
Certainly Young read the Proem. He refers to its lengthy praise of Bute's uncle, John Campbell, the second Duke of Argyll, and the urn he mentions is in line 34 of the Proem. This letter appears to have been written to accompany the revised manuscript. That is particularly suggested by the absence of any other business in the letter, and its being Young's first letter to Dodington for some time, probably the first since at least late April when Dodington was elevated to Baron Melcombe (as is suggested by the playful repetition of "Lord!"). Indeed, aside from Young's requesting that his Conjectures on Original Composition be sent to Dodington in 1759 (Pettit, 495), this letter is the first reference to Dodington in Young's extant correspondence since 1727.
Young's letter to Dodington of 17 October contains two specific textual references. Although it was principally written to thank Dodington for the ode "Kind Companion," Young opens the letter with two thoughts regarding the Epistle to Bute and returns to it in concluding. I quote the entire letter since it has only been known from Thomas Warton the Younger's fairly accurate transcription:
What, my Good Lord! if it ran thus
(viz) --- --- if we can judge aright
From a fair Morning of meridian Light.
As to ye Other place, ye. 2 Verses you have reinstated sets all Right.
I am much obligd by ye. serious Ode You sent me, as I think it introduces me to your Heart; wh I find in good Health. The Ode is a beautifully finisd Piece.
We in ye Country stare, & wonder, & look as wise, & as well satisfied as we can; & talk much because we know not what to say.
Your thinking some of my Notes not Useless to You, gives me
Pleasure for, indeed, I am
my Dear & Hond. Lord
Yr Affectionate
& much Obligd
& most Humble Sert
Octr. 17. 1761.
EYoung
Dodington had evidently sent Young thanks for his emendations, indicating that some of them had been used. This communication probably was accompanied by a text substantially the same as the LWL manuscript, which would
More significantly, the three feet of one line and all the following line which Young would change in the concluding couplet ("if we can judge aright | From a fair Morning of meridian Light") are from the only lines of the LWL manuscript not printed in 1776. The printed text ends with the remark that it is the Muse's charge "to praise True Greatness on the Throne, | 'Tis thine, O George! to make that Praise thy own." The couplet added in the manuscript introduces a compliment into the exhortation, ascribing some "true Greatness" (l. 293) to young King George III: "And Thine it is, if we can judge Aright, | From Morning Brightness of Meridian Light." Young's remark in the postscript about the "Ease & Simplicity of ye above alteration," though it could refer to the whole revised epistle (i.e., the new manuscript), more probably refers to either of the two changes specifically noted. Since the other change concerns the power of wisdom and cannot raise the issue of flattery, the "alteration" Young referred to must be the concluding couplet. Young's revision reduces somewhat the "brightness" ascribed to King George, and, thus, makes the close less flatterning. This couplet must not have concluded the manuscript Young revised. That would explain why now Young amended it. Also, if it was in the printer's copy, why, when he was intent on faithfully reproducing an old manuscript, did Becket strike the couplet in 1776? Similarly, we may ask why, if the LWL manuscript had preceded the version printed by Becket, didn't he receive and reprint the work's full title and its motto?
In summary, Dodington sent Young an epistle on "Wisdom and Cunning" probably drafted at least a decade earlier, along with a recently written proem to the Earl of Bute. Young revised both sets of verses, which were later printed together by Becket with Young's emendations placed in the footnotes. As I have hypothesized, Dodington returned a revised version incorporating most of Young's emendations and adding a closing couplet, this text being either the LWL manuscript or another very similar text. Young commented on two passages in this manuscript and returned it to Dodington.
| ||