[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 Of the poems published in 1633, one, Basse's An Epitaph upon Shakespeare, was withdrawn at once; another, the metrical Psalme 137, has been discredited and Chambers drops it.[1] Of those which were added in 1635, one To Ben Ionson. 6 Ian. 1603,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—

(These are the five Elegies suppressed in 1633—at such long intervals did they find their way into print.)