"John Lane, a fine old Queen Elizabeth's gentleman, who was living within my remembrance, and whose several Poems, had they not had the ill fate to remain unpublisht, when much better meriting than many, that are in print, might possibly have gained him a name not much inferior, if not equal to Drayton, and others of the next rank to Spencer; but they are all to be produc't in manuscript, namely his 'Poetical Vision,' his 'Alarm to the Poets,' his 'Twelve Months,' his 'Guy of Warwick, a Heroic Poem' (at least as much as many others that are so entitled), and lastly his 'Supplement to Chaucer's Squire's Tale.'"[673:A]
It has happened unfortunately for Lane, that the only specimen of his writings which has met the eye of a modern critic, has proved a source of disappointment. Warton, after recording that a copy of
Lane's supplement to Chaucer existed in the Ashmolean Museum at Oxford, adds, "I conceived great expectations of him on reading Phillips's account. But I was greatly disappointed, for Lane's performance, upon perusal, proved to be not only an inartificial imitation of Chaucer's manner, but a weak effort of invention."[674:A] This discovery, however, should not arrest all future research; for his four preceding poems, of which the latter two must necessarily, from their titles, be of considerable length, may yet warrant the decision of Phillips.[674:B]
To this brief summary of Master-Bards we shall now subjoin, in a tabular and alphabetic form, a catalogue of those numerous minor poets who were content to follow in the train of more splendid talent. In carrying this arrangement into execution it will not be necessary, after the example of Ritson, to dignify with the name of poet every
individual who contributed a single copy of verses, as a tribute to contemporary merit—a prostitution of the title which appears truly ridiculous; for though bulk be no proof of excellence, yet were we to assign the name of poet to every penner of a stanza, the majority of those who barely read and write, might be included in the list. To those alone, therefore, who either published themselves, or had their productions thrown into a collective form by others, will the appellation be allotted.
With a view to simplicity and brevity, the Table will consist but of three parts; the first, occupied by the names of the poets; the second, by abbreviated titles of their works, with their dates; and the third, in order to prevent the frequent repetition of similar epithets, will contain arbitrary marks, designative of the general merit of their writings, and forming a kind of graduated scale. Thus mediocrity will be designated by a broad black line (|); excellence will be expressed by eight asterisks before the mark of mediocrity, (* * * * * * * *|), and absolute worthlessness by eight after it (|* * * * * * * *); while the intermediate shades of merit will be sufficiently pointed out by the intervening asterisks. Occasional notes, where peculiarity of any kind may call for them, will be added.
On this plan of tabular construction, the tediousness of a mere catalogue will, in a great measure, be avoided; and, at the same time, an adequately accurate view be given of the multiplicity and diffusion of poetical composition which pervaded this fertile period.
TABLE of Minor Miscellaneous Poets, during the Age of Shakspeare.
SCALE.
| E | M | AW |
| * * * * * * * * | | | * * * * * * * * |