Page:Notes and Queries - Series 9 - Volume 1.djvu/138

 130

MOT Es ANb QUERIES.

. 1. ste. 12, IB.

The Unknown suggests " our wanton Rage " and " Upbraid Mankind." Thomson writes

Ye ravening tribes, upbraid our wanton Rage,

and prints this, with an inversion, in the text of 1744. The Unknown, that is, merely makes suggestions which he does not take the trouble to form into a line, and Thomson acts upon the suggestions. Is it seriously to be argued that Thomson found it useful to employ an amanuensis for first rough notes, such as these, where endless mistakes are possible in dictation, and such help must be really an encumbrance, and wrote out with his own hand his fully matured lines, when to dictate them might more conceivably be a relief ? A study of my critical notes would yield many instances of this kind. But in fact this theory of an amanuensis could scarcely be entertained by any one who had even seen the volume, over which I have spent many laborious hours. No one would think of employing an amanuensis over a volume of this size interleaved ; the task of emendation under such circumstances needs the eye as well as the hand of the writer ; assistance merely mechanical would be more trouble than it was worth.

As I am certain that these notes are the work of some friend, and have grounds for a positiveness on that point very different from those on which the positiveness of W. B. and Mr. Churton Collins is supported, I quite admit that what W. B. calls my " ill-advised gibe " was superfluous. Thomson was indebted for thoughts and lines in ' The Seasons ' to some friend, and he has not acknowledged the obligation. It matters nothing, for the purpose of the present dis- cussion, what interpretation is put upon this fact. The fact itself must be admitted.

I have no doubt that Thomson was, in the main, " his own reviser." W. B. actually affirms that " the work of the second reviser of 'The Seasons' nearly equalled in extent and importance that of Thomson's own accredited revision." Nearly equalled in extent ! I had prepared to refute this ridiculous statement but the analysis of my notes would have been a waste of my time and my reader's patience. I found four lines possibly in this handwriting in the notes on 'Spring,' which cover fifteen pages. After this I looked through thirteen pages of critical notes before I came to another sign of it. I did not pursue the examination any further, though I may admit that there are more notes by the Unknown on 'Summer' and 'Autumn' than on 'Spring.' I know my own task, however, well enough to be

able to assure my readers that Thomson's corrections are out of all proportion to those of the Unknown. I am only afraid of understating the case, and when I have time [ will expose this absurdity in complete detail, if necessary. The importance of these passages consists in their finish and the curious mys- tery that attaches to them.

W. B. speaks of the one passage of any length which is noted by me as " corrected to text " of Pope. I say, " Pope corrects to text." "The splendid critical pronouncement" in question is Thomson's, spite of verbal changes made in it by another hand ! There is absolutely no change which brings the passage as it stood in 1738 nearer to the stanza in ' The Castle of Indolence ' to which W. B. refers ; nor would anything be proved if there was, for the correction was made before 1744, and 'The Castle of Indolence' was published in 1748. The passage as it stood in 1738 may be seen on p. 231 of my critical notes. Unfortunately the symbols 30, '38, which I append to the readings of these editions, were omitted by me in tran- scribing for the press. Similarly, whatever resemblance there may be between this pas- sage and the verses on Congreve is the same, whichever text of this passage we compare with them.

It is, further, seriously urged that because Thomson speaks of visiting Lyttelton on 14 July, 1743, and proposes to bring with him more than one of the revised ' Seasons,' Pope cannot possibly have assisted Thomson between the years 1738 and 1744. It is only necessary to state this singular argument. The other purpose for which the passage is adduced I have already dealt with.

To prove the same point a comparison is instituted between a passage of Pope's and a passage indisputably Thomson's a passage, moreover, which the Unknown has left ab- solutely untouched. The question is simply whether Pope could have made the correc- tions or additions made by the Unknown. Such corrections, &c., as the Unknown has made were well within his compass.

To conclude, the balance of expert opinion is against this MS. being Pope's and I was the first to call the handwriting in question. It is not the writing of an amanuensis. It is not, so far as can be discovered (see critical notes, p. 195), the hand of any known poet contemporary with Thomson. The only poet with whose handwriting this MS. has ever been identified is Pope. Mr. Churton Collins and W. B. think that they have proved that Pope could not possibly have had any hand in the business and that