152
NOTES AND QUERIES. [9 th s. vn. FEB. 23, uoi.
The Goodyere epitaph. " Short anq[ suffi-
cient" MR. CURRY calls it, and for once 1
cordially agree with him.
An ill year of a Goodyere us bereft,
Who, gone to God, much lack of him here left.
Of such a Muse as that
Man wants but little here below, Nor wants that little long.
MR. CURRY, noticing that a Sir Henry Good- yere was celebrated in Jonson's ' Epigrams,' assumed that he was also the subject of the epitaph. That was a mistake, but it certainly seemed to establish a link between Goodyere and Jonson. On the strength of this sup- posed identity, MR. CURRY assigned the verses to Jonson. Admitting the collapse of his main argument, MR. CURRY now tries to re- construct it substantially as follows. (1) Jon- son wrote verses equally bad, or, as he prefers to put it, " at the least quite as good." (2) It is "quite clear" that Goodyere was Camden's friend; so it is "extremely probable" that he \yas Jonson's. Both assertions, though possible, are not yet proved ; and if they were, they would not decide the question of authorship. (3) Jonson was a married man. This stimulated " tender feelings," which found vent in epitaphs. (4) Jonson wrote 'Every Man in his Humour' the year after the epitaph (i.e., in 1596). This play was a masterpiece, therefore he must have done good work long before. The argument suffers here, either from over-subtlety or from in- coherence ; but if the date has anything to do with it, 'Every Man in his Humour' was acted in 1598, as Jonson himself tells us. MR. CURRY appears to have been again misled by Gifford. To sum up, we have not a shred of proof that Jonson wrote the lines, but merely a series of flimsy surmises. First, MR. CURRY announces that he could riot find any notice of the elder Goodyere in " numerous books of reference"; then, intuition supplying the place of know- ledge, he decides that Goodyere was "a man whom it must have been an honour to kaow "; and, lastly, he puts the triumphant question,' "Why should not Ben Jonson have known and loved this good knight," and written the epitapli '] Well, the good knight appears to have dabbled in treason, and certainly ruined the family estates, and I am not so sure, about his character as Camden and MR. CURIIY are. In the folio of 1616 Jonson published a col- lection of occasional verse. I have tried to show, in an analysis which I believe to be exhaustive, that the omission of any poem written before that part of the volume went to press can be explained (9 th 8. v. 338). L Jonson did perpetrate the Goodyere epitaph, why did he afterwards suppress it? It was not
ost, for Camden had printed it in 1605 ; and
what finer compliment could Jonson have
paid than to print side by side the verses
commemorating the two members of the
r amily? Waiving all other objections, such
an omission is under the circumstances
iecisive.
' Underwoods ' (2). My opinion of this poem was expressed, I had hoped, with clear- ness in 'N. & Q.,' 9 th S. v. 339. Apparently not, to judge from some cloudy verbiage about blowing hot and cold, midnight hags, and knots which trouble me. MR. CURRY must have read my suggestion with some carelessness. If he will re-read pp. 98 and 99 of Mr. Swinburne's ' Study,' contrasting Her- rick with Jonson, and pointing out how far the disciple outstripped the master, and then compare the statement on p. 100 that com- petent judges " will acknowledge that it would be difficult" to name songs of the period, including Herrick's, "at least as beautiful " as " Oh, do not wanton with those eyes," perhaps he will explain how these seemingly opposite judgments are to be re- conciled. Mr. Swinburne is commenting on Gifford's critical extravagance, and the context seems to require the reading "it would not be difficult."
As to "spill "and its absurd substitute, I am sorry to have underrated MR. CURRY'S knowledge of the language, but I think the mistake was a fair deduction from the strain in which he wrote. He connected the phrase with a realistic picture of Jonson's personal appearance, his " huge bulk of body, bloated with sack," and it did not occur to me that any one who knew the meaning of "spill" could do this.
Twere better spare a butt, than spill his muse, on which he now rests his case, explains the source of his confusion. In that passage Jonson quibbles with the word, and the con- text makes the double meaning clear. In ' Underwoods ' (2) there is nothing equivocal. So much so that, for a poem of Jonson, Mr. Swinburne finds in it "exceptional grace of expression"; and MR. CURRY actually quotes this tribute, with the magnanimous remark, " I refrain from any comment " ! I cited the poem to illustrate the incompetence of a critic who found supreme lyric power in its wire- drawn emotion ; the absurd love scene in ' Poetaster,' Act IV. sc. vii., is hardly more artificial. I had no conception that there was anything to criticize in the use of the word "spill." It is difficult to do justice to MR. CURRY'S exploits with this "tetrastich." First he read into it a grotesque suggestion which is not to be found there ; then he re-
