University of Virginia Library

From the Gentleman's Magazine: Graves, Shenstone, Swift, Warton, Prior, Byron, Beckford
by
Arthur Sherbo

I
The Earliest (?) Key to The Spiritual Quixote.

Richard Graves's The Spiritual Quixote (1773), it is well known, is to some extent a roman à clef, with no little admixture of autobiography. Hitherto, the first key to some of the characters' real identity was held to be that published in John Wilson Croker's 1831 edition of Boswell's Life of Dr. Johnson (IV, 524-525). The key was given him by his "venerable and amiable

friend, Lord St. Helens," the son of William Fitzherbert, and contains the following identifications, the characters' names appearing first: Sir William Forrester/Mr. Fitzherbert; Lady Forrester/Mrs. Fitzherbert; Lord----/L.P. Meynell, Esq. of Bradley Park, Mrs. F's father; Kitty Forrester/Catherine Fitzherbert, afterwards Mrs. Bateman; Miss Sainthill/Miss Hill Boothby; Colonel Rappee/Colonel Deane; Bob Tench/Mr. Nicholas Thornhill; and the Young Templar/Mr. C. Pratt, afterwards Lord Camden. "Even the inferior characters," Croker continues, "were drawn from the life," so that the "jacobite barber was one Daniel Shipley; George, the butler, was John Latham; and Molly, the lady's maid, was Mary Etches, afterwards married to Latham; Wildgoose, the hero, was supposed to be a portrait of Mr. Graves's own brother."[1] My present purpose is to examine what is probably the first key, one published in the Gentleman's Magazine (hereafter GM) in September, 1808, pp. 774-5. Prior to this it may be well to point out that the identification of the Foresters with the Fitzherberts had been made in 1804 in the GM's obituary notice of Grave's death (p. 1166). There, too, Mr. Rivers was identified as the author himself, and most scholars have been content to accept these identifications.

Perhaps it will be well to quote Hill (see note 1) on the whole matter of these identifications. Noting that those given by Croker were mostly of minor characters and "no longer possible to verify" he went on to write, "It is also perfectly fair to say that in most of these cases verification would not add much to one's appreciation of the narrative. Some comment, however, may profitably be made" (p. 59). Hill accepted the identifications of the Fitzherberts, Miss Hill Boothby, and Charles Pratt and went on to "things of greater importance," i.e., the narratives of Mr. Graham and of Mr. Rivers. Here, too, it should be mentioned that Clarence Tracy, editor of the Oxford 1967 edition of The Spiritual Quixote, is inclined to be sceptical of the identifications and concerns himself in his Introduction largely with the autobiographical element in the novel (p. xx). Tracy points out, however, that in the 1808 edition of the novel "Sir W. K." (Book X, Chapter xxii) becomes "Sir W. Keyte" p. (495).

The identification of Sir W. K. in the 1808 edition may serve as a bridge to the list in the September 1808 GM, for there Sir W. K. is identified as "Sir William Kyte of Horton, near Campden, co. Gloucester; after whose death the estate was purchased by Mr. Dudley Ryder, father of Lord Harrowby." The GM index of names for 1787-1818 records the death of a George Kyte in 1791, and there is an editorial note that reads, "The name is properly Keyt, near relations of a family, till lately, of great note and respectability in Gloucestershire" (p. 1167). This is corroborated by the Victoria County History of Gloucestershire, volume VI. Sir William Musgraves's Obituary Prior to 1800 . . . (1900), III, 368, sub Keyt, records the death of "William (Sir), Hertfordshire, 6 March 1757, age 72 (See an accot. of his death in the 'Hist. of

Jeffery Wildgoose,' iii. 164)." The GM obituary has him as "Rev. Sir Wm. Keate, Bart. aged 72, at Digby, near Walling, Hertfordshire" (1757, p. 142). Hence, one has Keyte, Kyte, Keyt, and Keate. The likeliest candidate is he of the 1808 GM, for he was of Horton, near Campden, which is three miles south of Mickleton, Graves's birthplace. Indeed, the GM obituary notice of Graves's death identifies Mickleton as "near Campdon, co. Gloucester." However, the only William Kyte I have found was of Shireborn, Gloucestershire; his son Joshua attended Oxford University and died in 1788 (Alumni Oxonienses). "Shireborn" is modern "Sherborne." Of negligible weight is the fact that Sir Dudley Ryder (see DNB), who was said to have purchased Sir William's estate, was the father of Nathaniel, first Baron Harrowby. This first identification must be judged, in part, by what evidence can be gleaned from the others in the 1808 GM list.

"W. F.," who sent the key to the GM in 1808, wrote, "I send you a key to the Spiritual Quixotte. I had it from a respectable quarter, and have reason to suppose it genuine. If you have not already noticed it [had it appeared elsewhere?], perhaps you may deem it worthy a place in your Magazine." According to the list, Geoffrey Wildgoose and Miss Townshend were "Feigned characters," a view shared by Hill, although some of Wildgoose's traits are taken from Graves's brother Charles. W. F. was right on Rivers and the Fitzherberts, but he could have got those identifications from the 1804 GM obituary notice of Graves's death. Aside from those already mentioned and that of Sir William Kyte there are thirteen other identifications. I have been unable to discover anything about the following, the characters' names appearing first: Lavinia/Mrs. E. Lowe of Worcester; Mrs. Booby/Formerly Miss Brace; Mr. Hammond/Mr. Bernard Kirkman; Mr. Gregory Griskin/The Rev. Mr. Boyce, Rector of Berkeswell in Staffordshire; Molly J----n/Molly Johnson, lately dead; and Jerry Tugwell/William Taylor, a shoemaker at Mickleton. Jerry Tugwell was, of course, a shoemaker, so that W. F.'s last identification, if true, lends something to our information about Graves's "sources," if that be the right word.[2]

What is most remarkable about W. F.'s key is its identifications of Miss Eutricia Smith, daughter of the Rev. Mr. Smith of Mickleton, in the county of Gloucester" as Ophelia of the novel and of "Mr. Bartholomew, of Alder, near Reading," as Mr. Woodville. Graves "received his earliest instruction from a Mr. Smith, curate of Mickleton and Vicar of Toddington. That gentleman had a daughter named Eutricia" (Hill, p. 62). Further, about 1744 Graves "took up his clerical duties in the parish of Aldworth in Berkshire, where he became a boarder in the household of Edward Bartholomew" (Hill, p. 65), whose daughter Lucy he married. Lucy was fifteen when Graves moved to Aldworth; Charlotte Woodville of the novel was "hardly fifteen" when Mr. Rivers went to reside with the family. Alder, by the way, is an alternate or variant spelling of Aldworth or Alworth. It is against the background of these

facts, and some complementary ones to be discussed, that the key in the GM must be judged. For example, Mr. Clayton is alleged to be "The late Morgan Graves, ESQ. of Mickleton, who married the daughter of James Walwyn, ESQ." Morgan Graves was Richard's brother; James Walwyn, ESQ. a banker, died in 1800 (GM, p. 1209) shortly after the death of his daughter. What is more, the GM key identifies "the late James Walwyn of Longworth, co. Hereford" as the original of Mr. Aldworth in the novel. (Note that Mr. Bartholomew, the original of Mr. Woodville, was of Aldworth, almost surely suggesting the name Mr. Aldworth for one of Graves's characters.) One more identification strengthens the impression that W. F.'s "respectable quarter," the source of his key, knew quite a bit about the Graves family, i.e. that the Countess of Huntingdon was Lady Sherwood of the novel, for Hill (p. 41) is authority for an association between Lady Huntingdon and Charles Graves, Richard's brother who is, in part, the original of Geoffrey Wildgoose. The next identification raises a curious problem, inasmuch as Mr. Wylmot is supposed to be "the late Rev. Mr. Walker, Rector of Whitchurch, Oxfordshire," and the only recorded Mr. Walker, Samuel in this instance, who was rector of Whitchurch, held this living from 1723-28 (Alumni Cantabrigienses), and would hardly be described as "the late" Mr. Walker. In any event, there was a Mr. Walker who was rector of Whitchurch in Oxfordshire, six miles northwest of Reading, "near" which was the residence of Mr. Bartholomew, the original of Mr. Woodville. In Book VI, Chapter XIV, Mr. Rivers took his wife, the former Miss Woodville, to dine with Mrs. and Mrs. Wymot, "whose seat in the country was not many miles distant from Miss Woodville's father's."

W. F. states that the original of Mr. Graham, now held to be Graves himself, was "the late Dr. Cholmondeley, fellow of Magdalen college, Oxon. His sister married Sir William Kyte." This is particularly interesting, since he also identified Sir Willam Kyte as the Sir. W. K. of the novel. However, the only Cholmondeley I have found who remotely resembles the above is John Cholmeley (a variant spelling of Cholmonedley), a fellow of Magdalen.[3] But he had no doctoral degree and he died in 1814, six years after the key in the GM. Nor is there any record in the indexes to the names in the GM for the years 1731-1818 of the marriage of a Miss Cholmondeley (or Cholmeley) to a Sir William Kyte. Two explanations offer themselves: W. F.'s information was inaccurate here, as in a few other places, or available records simply have omitted such events as the Cholmondeley-Kyte marriage and the death of the "Dr." Cholmondeley (Cholmeley) whose sister Sir William Kyte married. What is more, the same is true of the identification of the "Rev. Mr. Boyce, Rector of Berkeswell in Staffordshire" as the original of one of the most memorable minor characters in the novel, "Mr. Geoffrey Griskin, the little fat Staffordshire clergyman" who figures in Mr. Rivers's narrative (see Book VI, Chapter XIX). (Modern Berkswell is in Warwickshire on the border with Staffordshire.) Richard Boyse is the only possible candidate, but he became

Rector of Berkswell on 25 April 1713 (Alumnis Oxonienses), a date early enough as to suggest the existence of another Rector of Berkswell named Boyce, or a remarkable, but by no means improbable, tenure on the part of Richard Boyse. Graves began writing his novel in 1757, but he was already forty-two years old; hence Richard Boyse's candidacy for the original of Gregory Griskin is chronologically possible.

Ultimately the question of the value of the GM key must be raised. First of all, one of the most important identifications, that of Mr. Bartholomew of Aldworth as the original of Mr. Woodville and the whole matter of Graves's marriage to Lucy Bartholomew has hitherto rested on the unsupported statement of a work published in 1866. In his Remains in Verse and Prose (p. 96), the Rev. Francis Kilvert made the Bartholomew/Woodville identification, but gave no authority for it, although it is clear from the rest of his essay on Graves that he knew the key that had been given Croker. Indeed, he writes that "there is extant a key, assigning each of [the principal characters] to its original" (p. 108), but does not elaborate on the statement. The GM key not only makes the first Bartholomew/Woodville identification but also the first Utricia Smith/Ophelia identification, as well as a number of lesser ones. To be sure, there are discrepancies or seeming discrepancies in a few of the identifications, and some would seem to defy verification, but there are more clues than there are false trails. If the GM key inspires credence, and it should certainly inspire some, the autobiographical element in the novel is shown to be greater than has been realized and the purely fictive element reduced. In short, if The Spiritual Quixote is accepted as a minor classic, as its champions claim, any light upon the mode of its composition should be welcomed.[3a]

II
The Shenstone Canon

William Shenstone's abilities as a landscape gardener have been said to be greater than his talents as a poet, but it is equally true to say that his talents, though minor, were on a par with, and even exceeded, those of many of his contemporaries. Yet some of these contemporaries, minor poets also, have commanded more attention of late years than he. Perhaps it is not surprising, then, that the canon of his poetry has been fixed since 1918 when fifteen unpublished poems and five unpublished inscriptions were added to it.[4] Actually, four of the supposed "unpublished" poems had appeared in the GM, another instance of the neglect of this invaluable source. The poems, in order of their appearance in the GM, are:

• 1. Inscription for a Medicinal Fountain in my Farm (1794.ii,1037).
• 2. For a Beech (1795.ii,905).
• 3. Stanzas, On the Discovery of the Cheltenham Waters by Pigeons (1819.i,353).
• 4. The Roses Reconciled (1820.i,350).

The poems, Inscription and For a Beech, were submitted by Δ. π; the Stanzas, by D. Parkes of Shrewsbury. The Roses Reconciled was printed without any introductory matter, simply as one of Shenstone's "Juvenile Poems."

Equally unnoted are three poems, two inscriptions, and an eight-line addition to a poem by another, all in the GM. Again, a list will simplify matters.

• 1. Unnamed: "In Broome so neat, in Broome so clean" (1793.ii,790). Submitted by Δ. π. from Salop.
• 2. To the Memory of W. G. Parish-clerke at Broome (1798.i,467). Submitted from Shrewsbury.
• 3. A civil censure on the frivolous excuses made by many females, when solicited in company to favour their friends with a song (1827.ii,34). Submitted by Δ. π. from Shrewsbury.
• 4. Unnamed: Latin inscription for his housekeeper. Mrs. Arnold (1797.i, 102). Submitted by D. S. P. from Hales Owen.
• 5. Unnamed: Latin inscription "to a favorite little animal of the Poet's" (1827.ii,34). Submitted by Δ. π. from Shrewsbury.
• 6. Eight lines added to a poem by A. F. of Quinton entitled Verses Written at The Leasowes, May 19, 1759 (1812.i,216). Submitted by A. F.

It will not have gone unremarked that of the nine pieces listed D. S. Parkes of Shrewsbury, county Shropshire (Salop), submitted all but two. In 1812 A. F. suggested that "Mr. Parkes, or any other gentleman," should supply the GM "with a view of the House and Grounds at the Leasowes about the time of Mr. Shenstone's death" (p. 216). Mr. Parkes was evidently considered knowledgeable about Shenstone and the Leasowes. What is more, he obliged A. F., albeit belatedly, with a drawing of the Leasowes, reproduced in the 1823 GM (ii, 105).

D. Parkes almost surely knew, and possibly had a copy of, Shenstone's Poems Upon Various Occasions, published in 1737, a collection which Shenstone did his best to suppress.[5] The poem on "W. G. Parish-clerk at Broome" and that on the reluctance of females to sing were published in the 1737 collection, the second being simply identified by a Latin tag, Alboque simillima cygno, which served as an epigraph for the poem as reprinted, with its long title, in the GM. Thanks to D. Parkes we have that long, facetious title. The poem "In Broome so neat, in Broome so clean" was submitted with this accompanying letter, quoted in full:

Shenstone was with the Dolmans at Broom in the summer of 1745.[6]

The inscription For a Beech was prefaced by a letter and accompanied by a drawing of the cottage in Hales-Owen in Shropshire "once the infantile school of the celebrated poet Shenstone." And D. Parkes evidently visited Hales-Owen, where the farm The Leasowes was located, for the letter accompanying the inscription for Mrs. Arnold is dated from that place. The letter reads

The following year, writing from Shrewsbury, but without signature, Parkes submitted the poem on the Parish-clerk of Broom, prefacing it with this short statement: "The inclosed is an original juvenile poem, written by the late Mr. Shenstone, of the Leasowes, when on a visit at Harborough, near Broome, the residence of his uncle Dolman. The annexed view of the old church at Broome, and the bell in the tree (which I well remember), are copied from a sketch in my possession taken by Mr. Shenstone in 1739, which I shall be glad to see engraved to accompany the poem" (1798.i,467).

We do not owe the next addition to the canon to D. Parkes but to A. F. who, after suggesting that Parkes or somebody else supply a view of Leasowes, went on to say,

In a letter of January, 1760 Shenstone referred to his inadvertently burning "ambrose Foley's old Ballads." He consoled himself with the though that if they had all been burnt "Mr Ambrose must comfort himself, yt he has lost Nothing but what is infinitely inferior to what he is able to write himself."[7] Mr. Foley, a poet of sorts, seems the best candidate for A. F.; unfortunately the May 1759 visit to Leasowes is not mentioned in Shenstone's letters.

D. Parkes, submitting the poem on the Cheltenham Waters and their discovery by pigeons, stated that Shenstone "spent some time at Cheltenham in 1742, which seems about the time this was written." According to the extant Shenstone correspondence the visit to Cheltenham was in 1743, but the dates of the pertinent letters (pp. 69 and 74) are conjectural. In any event Shenstone was at Cheltenham for a few months in 1742 or 1743. Parkes either possessed or had access to manuscripts belonging to Shenstone, a fact to which he refers again in what I take to be his last contributions to the GM on Shenstone. In the July 1827 GM he submitted the poem on the reluctance of females to sing when asked by friends and the Latin inscription on a "favourite little animal of the poet's." He must also have been familiar with Richard Graves,

one of Shenstone's dearest friends and the author of The Spiritual Quixote, for John Nichols, in his Literary Anecdotes of the Eighteenth Century, writes in a note on Graves that he had been "favoured, by Mr. D. [identified as David in Nichols's index] Parkes, of Shewsbury, with a faithful drawing of his Portrait," adding that he was "indebted to the same friend for a copy of the following poetical effusion," i.e. "Lines written while viewing a Portrait of Mr. Graves" by S. J. Pratt (III, 746). One would like to know more about Parkes, but all I have been able to find are some "Lines, In the old Black Letter, in a Cell, or Cave, belonging to Mr. D. Parkes, of Shrewsbury. This cell was discovered in 1802, in a remain of the antient fortification, on the North-west side of the town, and is fitted up with shields of arms, stained glass in the windows, and the floor laid with curious ornamented tiles or quarries," a short poem by J. F. M. D. in the March 1811 GM (p. 262).

III
Swift's Letter to the Rev. John Kendall, February 11, 1691-92

The first extant letter by Swift is printed by F. Elrington Ball and by Harold Williams from a transcript in the Leicester Museum. John Nichols stated that the original was owned at the end of the eighteenth century by one of the recipient's grandsons. The supposed original came to rest in the Leicester Museum, but, according to Williams "the transcript in the museum, long accepted as the original, has no claim to that distinction," as the paper "belongs to the latter half of the eighteenth century; and the script suggests the end of the century or the beginning of the next. The hand is not that of Swift; and the document has never passed through the post."[8] It has not been remarked that the letter was first printed in the GM for April, 1752 (pp. 157-158), with the following introduction by "J. W." of W--l, Staffordsh.", who claimed that he got it from "a son of Mr. Kendall, who was then my near neighbour, and had the original in his possession."

Having lately read the earl of Orrery's letters, concerning the life and writings of Dr. Swift, and observing his lordship's remarks, in his second letter, upon one that the doctor wrote to his uncle, soon after his leaving the university, (in which his lordship says, we see nothing of that peculiar turn of phrase that is so visible in his other writings; and from whence he seems to infer that Swift's faculties had not then begun to exert and display themselves) I recollected that I had a letter in my possession of a somewhat earlier date than that which Lord Orrery has published, and withall more perfect; in which his Lordship (if he reads your Magazine) may see, that Dr. Swift was much the same man, with regard to the peculiarity of his turn of sentiment and phrase, at five and twenty, as he was, when his Lordship conversed with him, bating his improvements in the after part of his life. The letter, I can assure you, sir, is genuine, and was carefully transcribed by myself some years ago, from the original under the dean's own hand. I find, by Lord Orrery's account of him, that he sometimes visited his mother at Leicester. There, it seems, he had talked to a young lady in a strain, which, though usual with him, was thought somewhat particular by herself and her friends. Upon which the gentleman, to whom the letter

was written, who was Dr. Swift's near relation, and had been with him at the university, was applied to, to write an expostulatory letter to him on his conduct towards her after his departure from Leicester; to which letter, this which I have sent you is his answer; and this account I think it necessary to give you, by way of key to it. Both the letter and the account came to me from a son of Mr. Kendall, who was then my near neighbour, and had the original in his possession. The lady, without doubt, is dead, and every one else, in all probability, that were any ways interested in the affair. Therefore the publication of the said letter (which, from the date of it appears, at the latest, to have been written nine or ten months before that which Lord Orrery has produced, and, I am apt to think, from the same place too, viz. Moore Park) can have no other effect than to let the world see Swift's picture drawn by himself, and how that wonderful man thought and wrote in his younger days, and before his appearance in it as an author. Perhaps no genuine production of his, earlier than this, can now be met with. As to his treatment, indeed, of the lady, and the place she lived in, no one, I dare say, will think it odd, or out of character, in such a man as he afterwards appeared to be; and who (as both Lord Orrery and Mrs Pilkington have observed, and, as is sufficiently evident too from a great part of his writings) was not over-favourable in his sentiments of the fair sex, nor over-complaisant in his behaviour to them; and who, either in his mirth or his anger, would never scruple to treat even kingdoms themselves with as little ceremony as he here does the town of Leicester.

Ball noted that the Rev. Mr. Kendall "had two sons, one of whom was sometime 'gentleman' to the Earl of Clanricarde, and is mentioned by Swift in a letter to Sheridan of 20 July, 1736, as being then in the Irish revenue service." The letter is actually from Sheridan to Swift (Williams, IV, 519) and there is no reference to the Earl of Clanricarde, Ball mistaking the reference to "Colonel Nuburgh." None of this helps much to identify which of Kendall's sons gave the original to his neighbor in the little village of Wall in Staffordshire. "J. W." was almost surely of the Wall family, but I have not been able to discover a J. Wall who is chronologically and geographically right. Wall is slightly south of Lichfield and about thirty miles due west of Leicester and about nineteen miles west of Thornton. I suppose that some time between 1752 and the end of the century J. Wall gave the letter to John Kendall of Thorpe Langton in Leicestershire, grandson to the recipient. In any event, the first appearance of the letter to Kendall in an edition of Swift was in 1762, the date of publication of the fourteenth volume of John Hawkesworth's edition of Swift's works, published in twelve volumes in 1755. William Bowyer, John Nichols's employer, had added volumes thirteen and fourteen and, as is well known, more volumes were to be added in subsequent years. Thomas Sheridan's edition of Swift's works (1784) was notable largely, if not solely, for his life of Swift, and it was Sheridan's edition that John Nichols revised and augmented in 1801. The text of the letter to Kendall, in these three editions was not, however, based on the GM text, as will be seen.

In what follows I give page, line references, and text from the first volume of Williams's edition of the correspondence. The GM text is unique in yours (3,3,yours), mine (3,3,mine), think that though (4,21,though), (know 4,24, knew), demonstrations (4,31,Demonstration), angel (4,37,angell), lighting (5,3, listing), I (5,8,that I), just so (5,11,just). I have not listed differences in punctuation,

capitalization, and spelling. "Yours," "mine," and "angel," in the GM were italicized for emphasis. The other unique readings make good sense, with the possible exception of "lighting," although it too makes sense, albeit "listing" may be preferable. What is more, the GM text shares with Bowyer, Sheridan, and Nichols, that is without Ball and Williams, itself (3,13,my self) carried (4,22,carried on), a reason (4,28,Reason), to hate (4,29,[not] to have),[9] who (4,33,to), that manner (5,14,the manner). Four readings are common to GM and Williams alone: 'tis (3,1 and 4,7,is not), began (4,16,begin), having (5,10,and having). Three readings in Williams are unique: & used (4,5,used), have always (4.14,always have), shew how (5,12, show you how). At one point GM, Bowyer et al, Ball, and Williams all disagree, the texts reading in order: and so entail miseries (5,1-2) and entail a misery, and to entail a misery, & entail a misery. Bowyer et al omit "except all things else were agreable, and that I had mathematicall Demonstration for the falsehood of the first wch if it be not impossible I am sure is very like it" (4,30-32,[Williams's text]). Bowyer et al are unique in: these (4,1,in these), cunning (4,21,cunningest), these (4,35,they), thought (5,11,I thought). Nichols follows Sheridan in three readings: beside (5,8,Besides), in adding "affectionate" after "very" in the close of the letter, and in the signature, J. Swift (Jon. Swift). Only one reading is unique to Nichols: busy (4,8,so busy).

The fact that GM and Bowyer, Sheridan, and Nichols share six readings not found in Ball and Williams (readings in which the last two agree) plus the fact that Bowyer et al omit thirty-one words found in GM (and in Ball and Williams) suggests that Bowyer's text was a faulty transcript of Wall's transcript of the original, or some descendant thereof. And the "supposed original" of the letter was almost surely simply another separate transcript of one of the existing transcripts or of some other unknown to us. Incidentally, where Ball's text is unique, in two readings, [(and who,4,5,(who], and (4,9, ends), it is wrong. The whole matter is rather messy and raises more questions than allows for answers, but at least one conclusion emerges: the standard text of the correspondence is corrupt in the letter to Kendall.

IV
Some Uncollected Poems

I have come upon a small number of poems by minor poets of the eighteenth century in the GM and have failed to find them included in the canon of their presumptive authors. "Presumptive," because I am not sure that I have exhausted every avenue of possible corroboration or refutation. Since the poets are minor luminaries, at least as poets, I intend simply to list the poems under their different authors, giving title, first line, and location in the GM, with some appended remarks.

John Langhorne (1735-1779)

• A Pastoral on the Death of the Rev. Mr. H--rtl--y.* While Nature's hand that never works in vain. 1755. 374. [The footnote reads, "Late vicar of K--by--St--n, W--sm--nd." The signature is simply "Langhorn" from "Skelton." Langhorne was born in the parish of Kirkby Stephen, Westmoreland. There was a Skelton in East Cumberland and one in the North Riding, NE Yorkshire, but I cannot locate Langhorne in either through available biographical sources. However, in 1756, a letter concerning "an earthquake at Black Hamilton in Yorkshire," which shows familiarity with that locale, is signed "J. Langhorne" from "Thirsk" (p. 159). Thirsk is also in the North Riding, but I cannot find Black Hamilton in modern atlases.]
• Verses on a Hazel. Pride of all the sylvan train. 1756. 354. [With an epigraph "Nec Myrtus vincet Corylos, nec Laurea Phoebi," i.e. Virgil, Eclogue VIII., 1. 64. Signed "Langhorne."]
• [Hymnus ad Hygeiam. Grata venis, rediviva salus, in corpore sano. 1757. 181. From "Langhorne" of "Folkstone," it is by John's elder brother William who, himself a poet, was presented the perpetual curacy of Folkestone, Kent in 1754.
• Le Sociable. Partly in the manner of Milton. By Mr. Langhorne. Hence, gloomy spleen, and sullen care. 1758. 434.
• Verses occasion'd by Lord Lyttleton's on the Countess of Egremont. By Mr. John Langhorne. Sweet Muse of Hagley, whose melodious lyre. 1761. 232.
• An Epitaph and a poem on William Langhorne. In life belov'd, in death for ever dear. [and] Of Langhorne's life be this memorial given. 1802. ii, 1001. [These are in a letter by "S. E." and attributed by him to John Langhorne. S. E. claims to have copied these "from the original," i.e. from the stone in Folkestone church. Ten years later, in January 1815 another correspondent to the GM sent in both poems. There are three textual differences in the second, with the 1804 reading first: l. 2, race/face; l. 16 Pagan/Pagan's; l. 24, rest/test. The 1804 readings make better sense.]
• In the Garden of John Scott, Esq. at Amwell. In an Alcove. To scenes where Taste and Genius dwell. 1815. i, 387. [Signed "John Langhorne, D.D." This, too, is in a letter by "J. C." who had sent the two poems on William Langhorne in January 1815. There is a story that John was granted an honorary degree of Doctor of Divinity by the University of Edinburgh, but there is no record of such a grant. For the Scott-Langhorne friendship, see Lawrence D. Stewart, John Scott of Amwell (1956), pp. 46-47 and passim. Langhorne had written a poem in Scott's garden at Amwell in 1769 (Stewart, p. 46).]
• In the same Garden, in another Temple, under the words MIHI ET AMICIS. Thy friends have access to a nobler part. 1815. i, 387.

Thomas Warton, the Younger (1728-90)

• Thoughts on New Year's Day. Of time, and months, and fleeting years. 1803. i, 498 [In a covering letter, "J. B." who was "resident in Oxford at the time

  ---

  297

  
  
  
  Mr. Warton was near the meridian of his fame," deplored the absence of this poem and any other "moral or religious poem" of Warton's in Mant's edition. J. B., when a young man and residing in the University, was given a copy of the verses by "a friend and contemporary of Mr. Warton's." J. B. believed the verses an authentic "Juvenile composition of the late poet-laureat."]

Joseph Warton (1722-1800)

• An Elegy on the Death of Miss Sukey Lister daughter of Mathew Lister, Esq.; and Lady Boughton his wife, their 9th child, of Lawford in Warwickshire. Behind the hills when sunk the dewy sun. 1764. 242. [A Matthew Dymoke Lister, of Broughton, Lancs., son of Matthew, of Lawford, matriculated at Queen's College, Oxford in Dec. 1747, aged 17, M.A. 1752, d. 1772 (Alumni Oxonienses).]

Francis Coventry (d. 1759?)

• Inscription for an Oak in Penhurst Park. By the late Mr. F. Coventry. Stranger kneel here! to age due homage pay. 1761. 184. [Coventry wrote a poem, Penshurst; both it and the inscription celebrate the birth of Sir Philip Sidney at which time the oak was planted.]

Thomas Edwards (1698-1757)

• Ode Occasioned by a Lady's being burnt with the curling irons. By the late Mr. Edwards, author of the Canons of Criticism. Fair British ladies, whom with matchless charms. 1768. 486.

Arthur Murphy (1727-1805)

• Epitaph on the Death of John Ayton Thompson. If in the morn of life each winning grace. 1792. ii, 1136. [Signed "A. Murphy." A "Jn. Thompson" of "Nettleden, Bucks." died on Aug. 23, 1792 (GM, 1792. ii, 770); no Thompson is mentioned in biographies of Murphy. However, an actor named Thompson who played minor roles at the Haymarket from Feb. 1778 to Feb. 6, 1792 (the last recorded appearance) may very well be the subject of the epitaph, given Murphy's association with the theatre. The epitaph is for a young man, and the actor Thompson's brief career on the stage lends further credence to my conjecture.[10]

Lyttleton, George, first Baron Lyttleton (1709-73)

• To Mr. Hacket of Baliol-College, Oxford, on his playing the Part of Othello, at a private entertainment. Thanks, gentle youth! and thanks to fixed fate. 1755. 133. [John Hackett, Son of John of Westminster, gent. matriculated Balliol College 5 March 1752, aged 17.]

V
Another Text of a Poem by Thomas Warton

The April 1815 issue of the GM contained the following letter:

Mr. Meadors had not long to wait, for in the very next month (pp. 387-388), "J. N. L." wrote, with considerable authority, on the origin of the poem and quoted it in its entirety. John Newdigate Ludford of Ansley Hall, Warwickshire had matriculated at University College, Oxford on 11 November 1774, aged 18, and had proceeded to the M.A. (1778) and the D.L.C. (1793). He died on 16 May 1825 (Alumni Oxonienses, 1715-1886). The poem is preceded by the statements that "An old house and oratory, called Bret's Hall, were pulled down about the year 1750, and the stones of the oratory removed into the old gardens of Ansley Hall, where in a small dale they were formed into a cell for an hermitage, and at present remain so. Mr. T. Warton, the celebrated Poet Laureat, wrote the annexed copy of verses there in April, 1758." The poem, Warton's Inscription in a Hermitage, thirty-two lines in length, is quoted, and then Ludford writes: "These verses, as printed in the several editions of Mr. Warton's Works, are taken from an altered copy, published by himself, with other Poems, in 12mo.London,1777.—The facts are as follows: Mr Warton was tutor to the last Earl and late Marquis of Donegall, of Trinity College, and as such visited Ansley Hall in the Easter vacation 1758, when he wrote and left these verses in the cell. He never saw Ansley Hall after that time above once, if ever, and that the following year. Lord Donegall leaving Oxford in 1759, or thereabouts, came of age in 1760; and of course all connexions between Mr. Warton and Ansley Hall ceased. The two poems are now before the publick; and let them be the judges whether the natural and local simplicity of the original, written upon the spot, with all the objects around him, and on the spur of the moment, is not preferable to the stiff and affected style of the altered copy published by the finished Poet, afterwards Poet Laureat, certainly above 18, if not nearer 20 years after he had ceased visiting Ansley Hall, and of course forgot all the locality of the Poem. And as the copy he has given the publick is very different from the original, having little or no resemblance (except in the first and last words, and first verse,

and this is even mutilated, and the word "co-genial," in the second verse, which he still retained), I verily believe he wrote this entirely from memory, without a scrap of the original Poem in his possession, though he knew I was resident at Oxford at the very time, and could have furnished him with a copy at any time, as I always carried it in my port-feuille, and he knew the original in his own hand-writing (which I still have safe at Ansley Hall) was in the hands of the late Miss Juliana Ludford carefully preserved.' J.N.L." Warton contributed a poem titled The Complaint of Cherwell to an Oxford collection of verses on the death of George II in the name of John Chichester, brother to the Earl of Donegal, Gentleman Commoner of Trinity College, Oxford.

The poem, as it appears in Warton's 1777 Poems, in Richard Mant's edition (2 vols., 1802) and in Chalmers's Works of the English Poets is made up of five eight-line stanzas; the GM text omits the entire fourth stanza, i.e.

It should be remarked that Mant thought very highly of the poem, stating that he knew no English poem in the "eight-syllable verse" superior to it (I, cxxxiii) and being particularly taken by "the exquisite stroke at the end of the fourth stanza" (I, cxliv). The only difference, other than in accidentals, between the 1777 and 1802 texts is the former's "cogenial" in line 11 as opposed to the 1802 "congenial," something noted by Ludford. Interestingly enough, the OED quotes Warton's History of English Poetry twice for "cogenial," the only other illustration coming from Joseph Ritson's infamous Observations on Warton's History. Ritson recommended "congenial" to Warton in place of "cogenial." In the following collation the first reading is from the received text; the second, from the GM. Line 3, elms/trees; l. 10, pipes/sings; l. 12, wove/built; l. 13, busy scenes, and brighter skies/social scenes, by Nature wise; l. 16, morn I take my custom'd round/morn and eve I take my round; l. 17, buds yon shrubby/blows my flowery; l. 18, opening/budding; l. 22, That grace/Which deck; l. 23, winding wreaths/many a wreath; l. 32, my bliss create/retirement wait; l. 36, humble/thoughtful; l. 38, amice/mantle; l. 40, blameless/peaceful. Milton, whose poetry is echoed a number of times in Warton's poem, has "in amice gray" in Paradise Regained, IV. 427. If Ludford is right about the original composition of Warton's poem, the later version, with its extra stanza containing "wings bedropt with gold," an echo of Paradise Lost, VII. 406, "coats dropped with gold," seems intended to strengthen the Miltonic tone. Pope has "The yellow carp in scales, bedropt with gold" in Windsor Forest (l. 144). so that Warton could have had the Popean imitation of Milton in mind also. But the decision as to the comparative merits of the two versions must, to borrow an eighteenth-century locution, be left to the reader.

Another Text of a Poem by Matthew Prior?

The editors of The Literary Works of Matthew Prior print the following text of the short poem On Bishop Atterbury's Burying the Duke of Buckingham from Prior's Poems on Several Occasions (1727) and list no other appearances of it:

What has gone unremarked is a somewhat different text of the poem as printed in the GM in August 1784 (p. 596).

Recourse to the first volume, published in 1783, of John Nichols's edition of Bishop Atterbury's Epistolary Correspondence . . . reveals that the poem is quoted in its seeming entirety by Nichols in a footnote to Atterbury's letter of 27 September, 1721 to Alexander Pope. The text, except for accidentals, is the same as that printed by Wright and Spears, and one is therefore faced

with the problems that rise from the text in the GM, for the differences between it and the text in Nichols's footnote are such as to seem to preclude faulty transcriptions. And is the two-line Remark appended to the poem Prior's? If not, whose? What makes the matter especially interesting is that Nichols was one of two managers (the DNB's word) of the GM in 1784, as well, of course, as the editor of Bishop Atterbury's correspondence. What is more, immediately preceding the poem and its headnote in the GM is a communication by "Eugenio" whose running title, "Anecdotes of Dr. Gifford," shares the top of the page with "Epigram by Prior." Now "Eugenio" was one of Nichols's pseudonyms, and one would think that he would have seen the text of the poem below his own communication and the reference to his edition of Atterbury, the first volume of which, with a different text of the poem, had been published less than a year and a half earlier.[12]

VI
The Text and Canon of Byron's Poems

While looking for something entirely different in the GM I took note of the appearance of poems by or attributed to Byron in the years 1812 through 1824. They are, in order of appearance, as titled in the GM:

• 1. Address on the opening of Drury Lane Theater. Written by Lord Byron; and spoken by Mr. Elliston (1812.ii,470).
• 2. To a Beautiful Quaker (1813.i,256).
• 3. Love, By Lord Byron (1812.ii,366).
• 4. The Skull Goblet. Attributed to Lord Byron (1814.iii,575-576). [With a three-word epigraph from the Greek of Lucian; the epigraph is not in Coleridge's edition of the poems.]
• 5. The Eye of Blue! "From 'Hebrew Melodies', set to Music by Mr. Braham and Mr. Nathan" (1815.i,450). [Titled "I Saw Thee Weep" in Coleridge.]
• 6. Fare Thee Well! (Ascribed to Lord Byron) (1815.i,351-2).
• 7. The AEnigma—By Lord Byron (1818.ii,447-8).
• 8. Ode to Venice (1819.ii,256-7).
• 9. Lord Byron to Mr. T. Moore (1821.i,73).
• 10. Stanzas (1824.ii,361).

Except for accidentals, the Drury Lane address in the GM is textually identical with the received text, i.e. the Oxford Byron based on E. H. Coleridge's edition of the poems (7 vols., 1904). That the GM text should not differ in the seventy-three lines of that poem is of significance for what follows, for there are textual differences in four of the other poems as printed in the GM. Since one of the poems (No. 7) is not in the accepted canon, that leaves four other poems (5, 6, 8, and 9) textually identical to the Oxford edition, although in the reprinting of No. 8 lines 42 through 124 are omitted in the GM. In number 6, however, it should be noted that the GM text, taken from the pamphlet in which the poem originally appeared, has two readings preferred to the text of Leigh Hunt's Examiner in which the poem was reprinted on April 29, 1816.[13] The two preferred readings in the GM may be thought to be offset by four others which differ from the received text, although two of the four are the change of "Even" to "Ev'n." Number 3 is an excerpt from The Giaour, ll. 1131 ff.[14]

In what follows I give the received reading first and then the GM's. Number 2: (l. 14) in/a; (l. 15) falsehoods/language; (l. 29) This/Thus; (l. 36) make/ makes; (l. 44) dictate/dictates; (l. 46) never can/ne'er can; (l. 47) [omitted in GM];[15] (l. 48) bliss/bless'd. The GM readings in ll. 15, 36, and 44 are demonstrably wrong; those in ll. 29, 46, and 48 are all possible readings, while that in l. 14 is the reading in Coleridge, but not in the Oxford edition.[16] One is left with the impression of a faulty transcription, although there is the one, possibly inadvertent, true reading in l. 14. But whatever conclusions are to be reached about the value, or lack thereof, in the GM texts must depend upon analysis of all the texts in the periodical. GM differs from Oxford in five lines in Number 4: (l. 8) hath/has; (l. 13) Where once my wit, perchance, hath shone/And, where perchance my wit has shone; (l. 14) others'/others; (l. 18) like me/alike; (l. 21) since/when. While the readings in l. 14 is preferable in Oxford, the other four readings in the GM are possible. Perhaps the curious may wish to know that Byron uses "hath" six times and "has" four times in the entire corpus of his poetry. Professor McGann (see note 14) writes, "No. 4 is an interesting case; it could be a bad copy of the original (1814) printing, but I doubt it. It seems a transcription from a MS., and so— since the surviving MSS vary from it—the GM text (not previously known to me) is important." The greatest number of textual differences occur in Number 9: (l. 3) before/ere; (l. 5) to those who love me/for those I love; (l. 6) to those who hate/for those I hate; (l. 7) above me/above; (l. 8) a heart/heart; (l. 10) Yet it/It! (l. 13) Were't/Were it; (l. 14) upon/on; (l. 15) spirit/spirits; (l. 17) With/In; (l. 19) with/to. One would think that even the most careless transcriber would not make eleven errors in a poem of twenty lines. Possibly the transcriber officiously sought to make ll. 3, 8, 10, and 14 conform to the metrical scheme he thought the poem followed. This would explain why he changed ll. 5, 6; i.e. so that "above," his rhyme-word for l. 7, would have something to rhyme with in l. 5. Possibly, however, the transcription is a

faithful one from a foul copy, although there is no mention of a manuscript in the GM, nor indeed of anything, for the poem is printed without comment. It is at this point that I would recall to attention the fact that the text of the 73-line address at the opening of Drury Lane theatre in the GM is identical to the received text. So, too, are the seventy-seven lines of the abbreviated poem on Venice (No. 8). How does one account for a high degree of fidelity in the two long poems and eleven differences in a poem of twenty lines? One can, of course, predicate two transcribers at work, only one of whom bothered with verbal niceties. However, Professor McGann writes, "Your text of this poem is derived from the text printed in The Traveller of 8 Jan. 1821. I have not been able to trace an earlier version, MS or otherwise, for this particular variant of the poem."

One poem remains, and with it a problem. Coleridge prints a poem, On the Death of the Duke of Dorset, from "an autograph MS. in the possession of Mr. Murray, now for the first time printed. . . . It is endorsed 'Bought of Markham Thorpe, August 29, 1844'" (III, 425, n.1). Coleridge was, of course, wrong in stating that the poem had not been printed before. What is more, there are five differences in the GM text of this sixteen-line poem: (l. 3) wast/wert; (l. 5) my/mine; (l. 6) The/Its; (l. 7) it bids me dry/its lids deny; (l. 9) dull/deep. Whatever the poetic superiority of any one of these readings over another, one is still faced with the fact of the difference. Curiously enough, Oxford does not print the poem, although it does not seem to fall into the category of "shorter pieces—mostly juvenile verses and jeux d'esprit" avowedly there although present in Coleridge. Again I quote Professor McGann: "no. 10 as you have it is a reprint from the 1824 printing in Arliss's Pocket Magazine. The textual problems you note are a function of Coleridge's miscopyings, or misreadings, of his MS (there is another MS as well . . . which agrees largely with the one Coleridge used)."

The AEnigma (No. 7) is by Catherine Maria Fanshawe, whose "best" known poem is the riddle on the letter H, which has been often attributed to Lord Byron, and has been included in at least two editions of his works" (DNB). She was in Byron's company at least once, her account of which meeting appearing in at least two publications.

VII
William Beckford's Copy of William Beloe's Sexagenarian in the Cambridge University Library

Although the catalogue of MSS in the Cambridge University Library lists William Beckford's copy of M. A. Sabellici, Rerum Venetarum Libri XXXIII as having a MS note by Beckford, i.e. "Bound by C. Lewis," there is no listing for the four pages of MS notes in Beckford's copy of William Beloe's Sexagenarian, 2 vols., 1817, shelf-marks Adv. c. 87.8 and 9. Beckford's habit of writing notes in pencil on the fly-leaves of his books is well known, and a

number of these notes have been transcribed.[17] Beloe's Sexagenarian was acquired by the Cambridge University Library in the sale of the books of Henry Richards Luard, University Registery from 1862 to 1891. A MS note by Luard reads, "This was Beckford's copy, by whom are the pencil notes in the beginning of the two volumes. The notes throughout the volume are mine." While Luard's notes are of interest, as they identify many unnamed persons in the two volumes, they are informative rather than critical. Some of Beckford's are critical in more than one sense of the word.

Beckford's comments are keyed to pages of the two volumes of Beloe's work and are often quotation or paraphrase of Beloe's text. They are of some value and interest as an index of what captured Beckford's attention. And they do nothing to belie his reputation for causticness. A reference to the Bishop of Quebec in volume I on p. 75, is largely loose quotation: "The present Bishop of Quebec was originally a grocer's apprentice in which situation the Sexagenarian had seen him employed; but having a taste & talent for more exalted things than weighing plums & breaking sugar he has risen to eminence." In what follows I give page references to the first volume plus an explanatory remark where necessary and then Beckford's comment. P. 89, Gilbert Wakefield's caustic manner: "instance of G. Wakefield's extreme asperity proved by one of his letters which proves also the justice of the sentence which condemned him to Dorchester Jail," i.e. for a libellous pamphlet. P. 145, a young lady of masculine appearance was subjected to a practical joke in which her bed was elevated: "singular elevation of a masculine young lady." P. 278, on Horace Walpole: "anecdotes not much to the credit of Horace Walpole's hospitality or liberality." P. 292, "he used always to wash & put away his fine Dresden breakfast China—in the most notable and old-Lady like manner." The description of Walpole's manner is Beckford's, not Beloe's. P. 327, partially paraphrase and partially quotation of Beloe on Mrs. Hayley, John Wilkes's sister: "Commemoration of Mrs. Hayley (the sister of John Wilkes) who used to sit out all the more remarkable trials at the Old Bailey & whose professed object was to see every body & every thing which deserved or excited attention." Page 359, "Raking Up some of Helen Maria Williams's garbage," which last word he took from Beloe. P. 387, partially quoted from Beloe: "Mrs. Piozzi's most preposterous predilection for a young Italian mountaineer calling himself the nephew of her late never enough to be lamented musician man & when she has thought proper in defiance of all propriety to transform into the representative of the ancient Salusburys— pointed out, as is right to be, with the finger of scorn and reprobation." P. 408, largely quotation from Beloe: "Dr Brook the husband of the authoress

of that very pleasing novel of Emily Montague was one of the greatest bon vivants of his time—the deity of the table was almost the only one he worshipped with consistent devotion & in pursuance of this object he was a member of a club which was called Number Six.—It consisted of six members; they met at six in the Eve. & never parted till six in the Morning.—not withstanding his habitual indulgence in the festivities of the Table Dr Brook lived to a very advanced age." P. 415, "Mrs. Opie—a precieuse," Beloe's word. P. 435, largely quotation from Beloe: "Dr Porteous who had been Br of Chester for many years used laughingly to say he had never interest enough to procure a good Cheshire Cheese."

Perhaps it will be best to summarize the notes in volume two, as they are largely quotation from Beloe. P. 5, John Wilkes as a sad dog, but delightful and well-informed. P. 9, Wilkes's passion for collecting Bibles. P. 61, Browne the Africa traveller had passages "so bad as not to be transcribed" in his "otherwise valuable publications." P. 74, on Tibetan women who practiced polyandry, a "heavy burden" (Beloe) on them: Beckford commented, "a heavy family." Pp. 76-78, Lord Valentia, suffering disappointments, went to India for a change of scene; as a result he published three [sic] volumes of travels, of which Beloe thought little. Beckford commented, of the volumes: "upon which our Sexagenarian, however snarlingly disposed, could not avoid bestowing praise as containing much information particularly of a political tendency by no means unimportant." P. 82, Beckford's concluding remark on Lord Valenti, entirely in his own words: "Never perhaps were the advantages of Birth & Rank more conspicuous than upon this occasion—Their possessor, who in the British Capitol would have been shunned and pointed at [,] was caressed & glorified in British India where he moved about in government Barges and Palanquins & held Durbars or Levies which were fully and obsequiously attended & in short enjoyed so many perogatives & distinctions as induced the natives both Hindus & Moslems to believe him to be a no less personage than the Son or at least grandson of Mother Company herself, that omnipotent, mysterious old Woman the Ruler & also in some instances the Scourge of so many millions!"[18] P. 84, on Bishop George Gleig: "no very reasonable thwack laid over a R.t Revd Bishop's shoulders." P. 156, on the vast riches of the brothers, Lord Eldon and Sir W. Scott; P. 160, on the elevation of the first Jew to the British peerage; P. 158 [sic], on the rise of the house of Thellusson from humble origins. P. 213, Dr. Johnson on Hoole's Grubstreet unbringing. P. 215, on Gifford's satiric couplet on the poet Terningham, upon which Beckford commented: "Yet he rallied again & took leave of the public in a dying song." The page is cropped, causing a line to be absolutely illegible.

Notes