n Satire_,
if his own; and though he must have been aware that, by his silence, he was
virtually resigning his sole claim to its authorship. It was subsequently
included in Mulgrave's works, and has ever since gone under the joint names
of himself and Dryden.

On the question of internal evidence critics differ. Your correspondent can
see in it no hand but Dryden's; while Malone will scarcely allow that
Dryden made even a few verbal alterations in it (Life, p. 130.); and Sir
Walter Scott is not inclined to admit any further participation on the part
of the great poet than "a few hints for revision," and denies its merit
altogether--a position in which I think very few, who carefully peruse it,
will agree with him.

I am disposed to take a middle course between your correspondent and
Dryden's two biographers, and submit that there is quite sufficient
internal evidence of joint ownership. I cannot think such lines as--

"I, who so wise and humble seem to be,
Now my own vanity and pride can't see;"

or,--

"I, who have all this while been finding fault,
E'en with my master who first satire taught,
And did by that describe the task so hard,
It seems stupendious, and above reward."

or,--

"To tell men freely of their foulest faults,
To laugh at their vain deeds and vainer thoughts:"

would proceed from Dryden, while it is to be noticed that the inharmonious
rhymes "faults" and "thoughts" were favourites of Mulgrave, and occur twice
in his _Essay on Poetry_.

Neither can I doubt that the verses on Shaftesbury,--the four "will any
dog;" the four "For words and wit did anciently agree," the four "Mean in
each action;" the two "Each pleasure has its price"--are Dryden's
additions, with many others, which a careful reader will instantly
appropriate.

I can find no sufficient authority for the statement of Malone and Sir W.
Scott, that Pope revised the _Essay on Satire_. It is well known he
corrected that on Poetry.

JAS. CROSSLEY.

Manchester, Feb. 10. 1851.

{147}

* * * * *

FOUNDATION-STONE OF ST. MARK'S AT VENICE.

(Vol. iii., p. 88.)

I recollect having seen the stone in question in the collection of the late
Mr. Douce, in whose possession it had been for some years before his
communication of it to the Society of Antiquaries. It is quite evident that
he was satisfied of its authenticity, and it was most probably an
accidental purchase from some deale