Thomas Stanley: His Original Lyrics, Complete, In Their Collated Readings of 1647, 1651, 1657. / With an Introduction, Textual Notes, a List of Editions, an Appendix of Translations, and a Portrait.

This e-text includes characters that will only display in UTF-8 (Unicode) file encoding, such as:
If any of these characters do not display properly, or if the apostrophes and quotation marks in this paragraph appear as garbage, you may have an incompatible browser or unavailable fonts. First, make sure that the browser’s “character set” or “file encoding” is set to Unicode (UTF-8). You may also need to change your browser’s default font.
Some changes to the original text are indicated by dotted lines under the word . Place the mouse pointer over the word and the original text will appear.
In a similar fashion, dotted lines under Greek words and some abbreviations indicate the presence of additional information to assist the reader, e.g., Eἰkων Βασιλιkή .
WITH AN INTRODUCTION, TEXTUAL NOTES, A LIST OF EDITIONS, AN APPENDIX OF TRANSLATIONS, AND A PORTRAIT. EDITED BY


Thomas Stanley’s quiet life began in 1625, the year of the accession of that King whom English poets have loved most. He came, though in the illegitimate line, from the great Stanleys, Earls of Derby. His father, descended from Edward, third Earl, was Sir Thomas Stanley of Leytonstone, Essex, and Cumberlow, Hertfordshire; and his mother was Mary, daughter to Sir William Hammond of St. Alban’s Court, Nonington, near Canterbury. Following the almost unbroken law of the heredity of genius, Stanley derived his chief mental qualities from his mother; and through her he was nearly related to the poets George Sandys, William Hammond, Sir John Marsham the chronologer, Richard Lovelace and his less famous brother; as, through his father, to a fellow-poet perhaps dearer to him than any of these, Sir Edward Sherburne.
His tutor, at home, not at College, was William Fairfax, son of the translator of Tasso. With translation in his own blood, that accomplished and affectionate gentleman succeeded in inspiring his forward charge with a taste for the same rather thankless game, and with a love of modern foreign classics which he never lost. It was thrown at Stanley, afterwards, that in courting the Muses, he had profited only too well by Fairfax’s aid: but the charge, if ever a serious one at all, was absurdly ill-founded. It may have been based on a wrong reading of that very generous acknowledgement beginning: ‘If we are one, dear friend,’ which is printed in this volume; for the muddled misconstruing mind has existed in every intellectual society. Nothing is plainer than that Stanley, both by right of natural genius and of fastidious scholarship, was more than capable of beating his music out alone.