University of Virginia Library

ANTE-PREFACE.

D'israeli, the elder, in his Chapter on Prefaces,
says that “the way to entertain the reader and
“soothe him into good humor, will be best obtained
“by making the preface (like a symphony to an
“opera) to contain something analogous to the work
“itself, to attune the mind into a harmony of tone.”
The writer of the preface to a former edition of this
work had endeavored to follow the advice of this
elegant writer, but, alas! Old Dizzy has no advice

to give as to ante-prefaces; so, not having the fear
of precedents before his eyes, the editor can be as
dull as he pleases. If the reader is offended, all
that he has to do is to turn over a few pages, and
get into the very marrow of the book itself, and
when he has exhausted that, turn back to preface
and ante-preface if he chooses, in hopes to extract
some benefit from them, just as children, when they
have extracted the juice out of a ripe orange, fall to
and chew the skin with unsatisfied desire. For my
part I do not see what right a preface has in the
beginning of a book at all. I am not averse to innovation
myself, but I do not like to be the pioneer
in this kind of business; and if I could change
matters, I would soon alter the title of all “prefaces”
to “appenda,” and hang them on the tail of each
work, like bobs on a kite.

In furnishing the preface to “Father Tom and the
Pope,” the writer had adopted the common belief
among literary men here, that William Maginn was
the author. It is very true that in Dr. Mackenzie's
excellent edition of this author's collected works,
“Father Tom” does not appear. But that goes for

very little. I have also the collected works of
Jonathan Swift, D.D., published by Charles Bathurst,
London, 1742, in twelve volumes, 12mo., in
which Gulliver's Travels do not appear! And in
the collected works of the true author of “Father
Tom and the Pope,” this admirable sketch is carefully
omitted. In a letter to me he says: “My friend
“Dr. Smith has informed you correctly as to the
“authorship of `Father Tom and the Pope.' It was
“written by me in the summer of 1838, just about
“the time of my call to the Irish Bar. No one
“else had any hand in it, and like the `Forging of
“ `the Anchor,' it underwent a rejection before its
“appearance in Blackwood. I am flattered by its
“having been ascribed to Maginn, for whose genius
“I entertain a high admiration. I have never
“made any secret of the authorship, but as I have
“constantly endeavored in any literary work I have
“been able to do for many years back to elevate the
“Irish subject out of the burlesque, I have an indis
“position to place my name on the title-page of so
“very rollicking a piece as Father Tom.” In another
part of the letter he says, “Anything that I
“have done in the higher walk of my literary vo
“cation has become very slowly known, owing
“probably to a not unnatural repugnance toward
“the Irish subject, when presented in any other
“than a droll aspect.” It is scarcely courteous for
me to take such a liberty as to place the name of
the author upon the title-page of this book, but
I have no reason to withhold the information which
I derived from other sources as to its paternity.
A dear friend, whose memory is familiar to every
lover of literature in this country,[1] soon after the
first edition of this book appeared, told me that I
was all wrong in my surmises; that Thackeray,
when he was here, had said that “Father Tom and
the Pope” was written by a gentleman from Wexford,
Ireland, (the author is really a native of Belfast,)
who, like Single-Speech Hamilton, had never
distinguished himself in any other way; and who,
although a writer of very great genius, seemed content
to rest his fame upon this first-born child of
his brain. Soon after I received a letter from one
of the most learned fathers of the Roman Catholic
Church, who corrects me in some particulars in the
preface. He says, “You say Maginn was a good
“Catholic. He never was a Catholic. He was a
“Protestant of the Church of England, `so-called,'
“and so was his father before him. Maginn was a
“man of extraordinary genius. But like many
“others of that ilk, he was unfortunate. His bro
“ther, Rev. Charles Maginn, is I believe living still,
“and a clergyman of the Church of England, `so“called.'
With regard to the discussion between
“Father Tom and Rev. Mr. Pope, you seem very
“injudiciously to have prejudged the case. In so
“ber truth, Father Tom overcame Pope. This was
“confessed by many Protestant clergymen of the
“Church of England, `so-called;' among the many,
“two well known to myself, Rev. Stephen Ratcliff,
“of Lisnadell, and Rev. Mr. Olpherts, of Armagh.
“You say that Father Tom by some legerdemain
“drove Pope to the Fathers, and that Pope having
“thus been driven from the dear Bible and unac
“quainted with the Fathers, was used up by Fa
“ther Tom, etc. Now this is not so; neither is it
“at all true that Pope, having commenced to study
“the Fathers, found Father Tom's quotations false,
“etc. Now, my dear friend, please call on Donegan
“& Brother's publishing house, N. Y., where you
“can get the controversy of `Pope and Maguire,' and
“you will find that the Provost of Trinity College,
“Dublin, refused to translate the extract from a
“Greek Father, and it remains untranslated in the
“published controversy. Maguire was willing to
“leave the translation to the Provost when his own
“had been disputed. But the Provost would not,
“so that there is no use talking about the Fathers
“in that way.

“I will give you an opinion from St. Augustine,
“one of the most philosophical and logical men that
“ever existed. `I would not believe the Scriptures
“were it not for the testimony of the Church.' Now
“what do you say to that? St. Augustine is right.
“How would we know it to be Scripture were it not
“for the testimony of the Church? My dear sir, I
“need not pursue the argument any further, for to
“one of your natural and acquired ability it must be
“self-evident. Father Maguire boldly asserted in

“a speech in public in the city of Dublin, that he
“had been offered a `nate' church, with a living
“worth £800 per annum. The Protestants called on
“him for the proof. Father Tom offered to give the
“proof in presence of men he named at any day and
“date they pleased. It is needless to say that the
“men he named were Protestants, but high-minded
“gents, and he was never troubled more about it.
“With respect to Heffernan, whom you call a hedge
“priest, he is represented as a hedge-schoolmaster;
“as you will see through all the narrative of `Fa
“`ther Tom and the Pope.'

“Again, I do not believe that Maginn was the
“author. I think, if I rightly recollect, it appeared
“in the `Dublin University Magazine,' author un
“known.”

Nearly at the same time that this letter from my
amiable Roman Catholic friend was received, another
one had reached me, written by a personal
friend of the author of “Father Tom and the Pope.”
As liberty has been given me to make use of it, I
quote a brief extract. “I regretted to see,” says
“the writer, (David S. H. Smith, M. D., Mabbetts

“ville, N. Y.,) “that the author's name was not upon
“the title-page, and that you were unable to decide
“upon it in your preface. The brochure was not
“written by Lord Brougham, nor by the Duke of
“Wellington, nor by Maginn, but by Samuel Fer
“guson, Esq., of Dublin, barrister-at-law, author of
“the `Forging of the Anchor,' and other poems. I
“have my information from Dr. Ferguson himself
“(he was created an LL.D. by the University of
“Dublin in 1865), whose acquaintance I formed
“during my sojourn in the medical school of the
“Irish metropolis.” In a capital review of “Father
Tom and the Pope,” in the Round Table for Nov.
30, 1867 (written I believe by Mr. Eugene Casserly)—a
review that has blood and marrow in it, for
it does not hesitate to speak right out in a straight-forward
manly way, and say “That is wrong,”
when it has reason to say sc—the authorship is attributed
to Dr. Samuel Ferguson, author of the
“Forging of the Anchor.”

With all these links of circumstantial evidence
before me, I wrote to Dr. Ferguson himself, for
“more light” upon the subject. A portion of his

answer has been already quoted. And, although
debarred by his injunction,—“I have an indisposi
“tion to place my name on the title-page of so very
“rollicking a piece as Father Tom,” which I have
obeyed, yet nobody can possibly find fault with
the pains that I have taken to get his name in the
preface, except one, and that is himself.

But I hope he will forgive me, for I do not believe,
as multitudes of thoughtless people do, who read
the sophistries of Copyright Carey, that the public
has any right to the mental productions of an
author without his consent, no more than they have
an agrarian right to the coat and waistcoat which he
has earned by those literary labors. If authors
benefit mankind, why should not mankind protect
their benefactors? If an author can “smooth a
wrinkle on the brow of care,” why should not
mankind lend a helping hand to smooth a wrinkle
on his own?

But this has nothing to do with “Father Tom
and the Pope.” Behold! it is a free gift! Not even
Fame,

[ILLUSTRATION] [Description: 526EAF. Ante-Preface. Page xiv. Tail-piece depicting a knight of the church holding a scepter. The knight is surrounded with an ivy border.]

has touched the author. He would rather try to
restore the ancient glories of Ireland. It will be
a thankless task to be sure, but it is beautiful to
see the developments of the task itself. The ancient
Irish kings and heroes may rejoice over it, if
they are in spiritual communication with the poets
of this world. But for a few centuries at least,
until the Romish Church is extinct, our children's
children will enjoy A Night in the Vatican.