Mar. 1. 1851.] 



NOTES AND QUERIES. 



163 



Tonson, as we have just seen,, gave currency to 

 the assertion that Dryden was "ignorant of the 

 whole matter." 



To this dis[)lay of contemporary evidence must 

 be added the information derivable from the post- 

 humous publications enumerated in the former 

 part of this article. The publication of 1723 was 

 made by direction of the duchess of Buckingham. 

 The couplet, " Tho' prais'd," &c., and the appended 

 note, were omitted. In 1726 Mr. alderman Bar- 

 ber republished the volumes " with several ad- 

 ditions, and without any castrations," restoring 

 the cou])let and note as tliey were printed in 1717. 

 In the Original poems of Dryden, as collectively 

 published in 1743, the joint authorship is stated 

 without a word of evidence in support of it. 



If we turn to the earlier writers on Dryden, we 

 meet with no facts in favour of his claim to the 

 poem in question. Anthony ii Wood says, "the 

 earl of Mulgrave was generally thought to be the 

 author." This was written about 1694. The 

 reverend Thomas Birch, a man of vast information, 

 repeated this statement in 1736. Neither Cou- 

 greve nor Giles Jacob allude to the poem. 



The witnesses on the other side are, 1. The 

 publisher of the Slate poems. 2. Dean Lockier. 

 And 3. The reverend Thomas Broughton. 



The State poems, in wiiich the essay is ascribed 

 to Dryden, may be called a surreptitious publica- 

 tion : it carries no authority. The testimony of 

 Lockier, which is to the same effect, was never 

 published by himself. It was a scrap of conversa- 

 tion held thirty years after the death of Dryden, 

 and reported by another from memory. The 

 reverend Thomas Broughton, who asserts the joint 

 authorship of the poems, cites as his authority the 

 Original poems, &c. Now Kippis assures us that 

 he edited those volumes. On the question at issue, 

 he could discover no authority but himself! 



Dryden 7m/y have revised the Essay on satire. 

 Is that a sufficient reason for incorporating it with 

 his works ? Do we tack to (he works of Pope 

 the poems of AVycherly and Parnell ? We have 

 authority for stating that Pope revised the Essay 

 on poetry. Is it to be added to the works of Pope? 

 Be it as it may, the poem was published, in sub- 

 stance, six years before Pope was born ! 



As the evidence is very brief, there can be no 

 necessity for recaiiitulation ; and I shall only add, 

 tliat if about to edit the poetical works of Dryden, 

 I should reject the Essay on satire. 



Bolton Cobnev. 



MACKLIN 3 ORDINARY AND SCHOOL OF CRITICISM. 



Mr. George Wingrove Cooke, in his valuable 

 ■work, The History of Party (vol. iii. p. 66.), 

 grives an admirable sketch of Ihe life of Edmund 

 Burke. Speaking of his early career, and of tiie 

 various designs which he forujcd lor his future 



course, we are told that "at Macklins Debating 

 Society he made the first essay of hia powers of 

 oratory." 



Mr. Cunningham, in his Handbook for London, 

 speaks of Macklin delivering Lectures on Elocu- 

 tion at Pewterer's Hall (p. 394.), and of his resi- 

 dence in Tavistock How, Covent Garden (p. 484.) ; 

 but he does not mention Macklin s Debating So- 

 ciety. I imagine that by this "Debating Society" 

 is meant an Ordinai-y and School of Criticism, 

 which that eminent actor established in the year 

 1754, in the Piazza, Covent Garden. Mr. W. 

 Cooke, in h\s Life of Macklin, 1806, p. 199., says — 



" What induced him [Macklin] to quit the stage in 

 the full vlorour of fame and constitution, was one of 

 those schemes which he had long previously indulged 

 himself in, of suddenly making his fortune by the 

 establishment of a tavern and coffee-house in the Piazza, 

 Covent Garden ; to whicli he afterwards added a school 

 of oratory, upon u plan hitherto unknown in England, 

 founded upon the Greek, Roman, French, and Italian 

 Societies, under the title of The British Inquisition." 



The first part of this plan (the public ordinary) 

 was opened on the 11th of March, 1754; and an- 

 amusing account of its operations may be found 

 in Angelo's Pic Nic, p. 32. The second part of 

 " Macklin's mad plan," as it was then termed, 

 " The British Inquisition," commenced proceed- 

 ings on the 21st of November in the same year;i 

 and here, according to the first advertisement, 

 " such subjects in Arts, Sciences, Literature, Cri- 

 ticism, Philosophy, History, Politics, and Morality, 

 as shall be found useful and entertaining to society, 

 will be lectured upon and freely debated." 



Edward F. IiiMBAUi.T. 



" love's labour's lost" (Act II. Scene 1.). 



" It is odd that Shakspeare should make Dumain 

 inquire after Rosaline, who was the mistress of Biron, 

 and neglect Katharine, wlio was his own. Biron 

 behaves in the same manner. — Perhaps all the ladies 

 wore masks." — Stef.vens. 



" They certainly did." — jMalone. 



" And wliat if they did ? " — Quehy. 



In what possible way can the circumstance of 

 the ladies ^rearing masks lessen the inconsistency 

 pointed out by Stecvens ? 



Kosaline has been immediately singled out by 

 her former admirer — 



" Did I not dance with you in Brabant once?" 



— a circumstance quite inconsistent with uncertain 

 identity afterwards. 



But if the gentlemen really did mistake the 

 identity of their ladies, Boyet's answers must have 

 misled them into a similar mistake in their 7utmes : 

 so that the natural consequence would have been, 

 that each lover would afterwards address his 



