BOURNE. Not a syllable: indeed Ellis omits all mention of a poet as celebrated as Fitzgeffrey, though he introduces such men as Still, Wastell, and Burton. ELLIOT. This makes me more desirous to see something of this poem of Sir Francis Drake, regarding which we have talked a good deal, but yet read nothing. MORTON. And I would fain hear one of those rare sonnets by W. Percy, if you have preserved any of them in MS. BOURNE. I regret that I have not, but two of them may be found in Censura Literaria (III. 374), though it is to be lamented, that more favourable specimens could not be chosen. W. Percy is the first author, that I remember, who published on his own account: his Sonnets were 66 printed by Adam Islip for W. P.” ELLIOT. W. P. being the initials of the writer William Percy? BOURNE. Yes: I was going to add regarding him, that in the address prefixed to his "Sonnets to his fairest Cælia," he undertakes "ere long to impart vnto the world another poeme which shall be more fruitfull and ponderous," but like many others, it has never come to light. It is worth a remark, that Barnabe Barnes's "Parthenophil and Parthenophe, Sonnettes, Madrigals, Elegies, and Odes," which was in the collection of Doctor Dampier, late Bishop of Ely (the date and printer's name being torn off, but "the Printer's address to the Reader" dated 1593), is dedicated "to the right noble and vertuous gentleman, M. William Percy," perhaps the author of " Sonnets to the fairest Cælia." MORTON. Of course that is only conjecture. BOURNE. Not exactly: we have evidence to prove that Barnes had a friend of the name of W. Percy, who was a poet, or at least a rhymester; for in an edition of Barnes's "Foure Bookes of Offices," dedicated to King James, and printed in 1606, I found the following commendatory "Madrigal," signed "W. Percy, Musophilus," which I will read on account of its rarity, as it has not been quoted or referred to by any body since the work was published. ELLIOT. Is it not noticed in Censura Literaria, in the British Bibliographer, nor in Restituta?-Have not the industrious editors, Sir E. Brydges, or Mr. Haslewood, those literary resurrection-men who present us with the half-rotten carcasses of books long dead, mentioned this Madrigal? BOURNE. NO; and what is a little singular is, that in Restituta an extract is given from Barnes's work, but nothing is said regarding the Madrigal by Percy nor the other commendatory verses by Tho. Cam❤ pion, Tho. Mychelborne, and Robert Hasill. MORTON. Ritson also omits them; but I recollect seeing in the British Museum what appeared to be the presentation copy to King James of Barnes's "Foure Bookes of Offices;" but I am very certain that there were no preliminary poems. BOURNE. There were probably two editions of the work in the same year: if you should meet with it again, let me recommend to your perusal a long passage in the second book, where Barnes speaks of the English language, and of English poets: it is the most interesting part of the whole, and has never been quoted either in Restituta or elsewhere. ELLIOT. Let us hear Percy's Madrigal, and then return to Fitzgeffrey. BOURNE. I wish it better deserved reading: it is worth preserving principally as a curiosity. "To Master Barnabe Barnes, this Madrigall vpon his Booke. If all the world were sought from Malta to Mone, For as some spirits, while they haue beene attent Others againe (too much I ween yblent So if a meane there be (as meane but one, O let me then (with licence) to avow T'will, right Paladine, be by onely you. W. PERCY Musophilus Spes calamo occidit." ELLIOT. Spare us the hearing of any more such curiosities-such half-witted stuff! BOURNE. I admit that it is bad; but the best have failed in this sort of effort, if effort it may be called-witness Spencer's Sonnet before the Life of Scanderbeg (1596), only discovered of late years by Waldron. ELLIOT. If it had never seen the light, perhaps both we and the poet should have been gainers-at least no losers. I see no more reason for reviving the bad works of dead poets, than for publishing the bad acts of dead men. The old worn-out Latin proverb is as applicable to the one as to the other. BOURNE. Now, indeed, you open a wide field for argument. MORTON. Which for the present, if you please, we will leave unexplored. ELLIOT. At least Spenser's Sonnet has good grammar and good measure to recommend it, which Percy's Madrigal has not. But let us proceed to something better-Fitzgeffrey's poem. MORTON. Ought we not first to know a little more about the author? BOURNE. Anthony Wood's account of him is, I apprehend, in the main correct: indeed, nobody has been able to add much to it, though Warton, in his History of English Poetry, and others after him, have taken away what Wood claimed for Fitzgeffrey, viz. that he was the compiler of this work, "England's Parnassus," 1600, which contains, as you will perceive, selections from all the chief poets who wrote before that date. MORTON. That collection has been given to Robt. Allot. BOURNE. And probably justly, though only that writer's initials are subscribed to an introductory sonnet. Robt. Allot is a joint sonnetteer with E. Guilpin before Markham's "Devereux," 1597. They were probably friends, and though Guilpin's name occurs in no other book, he is not unfrequently quoted in "England's Parnassus." This affords some slight confirmation that Allot was the compiler of it. MORTON. I have often regretted that in the late fine reprint of it, the works of the various authors were not appended to their names. BOURNE. That would be no easy undertaking at this distance of time; besides, it sometimes happens that lines are assigned to one author, that, in fact, belong to another: as one instance, I will read the following stanza attributed in "England's Parnassus" to J. Weeuer. VOL. I. |