THE AUTHORSHIP OF RULE BRITANNIA'

If it be true, as Southey has declared, that 'Rule Britannia' will be 'the political hymn of this country as long as she maintains her political power,' it is surely a matter of some importance that the authorship of the ode should be placed beyond all reasonable doubt. Unfortunately, from the very nature of the case, that now seems almost impossible, although, as we shall endeavour to show, the balance of evidence seems to weigh much more heavily in favour of one claimant than of another. The initial and indeed the main difficulty arises from the fact that 'Rule Britannia' originally formed part of a work written conjointly by James Thomson and David. Mallet, who gave absolutely no indication of their respective shares in the composition. The work in question was the masque of Alfred, which was prepared for an entertainment at Cliefden House, Maidenhead, on the 1st of August, 1740. Cliefden was then the residence of the Prince of Wales, and the occasion was to commemorate the accession of George the First and the birthday of Princess Augusta.

Thomson died eight years after this, and nothing, so far as we know, had been said in the meantime about the authorship of 'Rule Britannia.' In 1751 Mallet rewrote Alfred for Drury Lane Theatre. In his preface he says, 'According to the present arrangement of the fable I was obliged to reject a great deal of what I had written in the other; neither could I retain of my friend's part more than three or four single speeches and a part of one song.' The italics are ours. Now the question at once presents itself, What was this 'one song'? The original Alfred contained six lyrical pieces, four of which are called 'songs,' one is called 'stanzas,' and one (Rule Britannia') an ode. None of these pieces are distinguished by the name of the writer. What, then, was the one song' of 1751 which Mallet retained as part of Thomson's work in 1740? Needless to say, the advocates of Mallet affirm that it was not 'Rule Britannia.' They declare that it must have been the song 'From those eternal regions bright,' and they support the opinion by the fact that this song was in 1751 enlarged into an ode by the addition of some lines and a chorus.' But Mallet's words, as quoted above, will hardly bear the interpretation which would lead to this conclusion. He says

definitely retained a part of one song;' and this cannot possibly mean that the song was 'enlarged,' but, on the contrary, that a portion of it was actually deleted, and probably that other words were substituted for the portion thus deleted. This latter reading of Mallet's announcement applies exactly to 'Rule Britannia.'

In the Alfred of 1751 Mallet states in a note that three stanzas of the now famous ode had been written by Lord Bolingbroke. On this point there is no doubt; but the views of critics are somewhat divided on the question as to whether Mallet was more likely to ask Bolingbroke's assistance in furbishing up a composition of his (Mallet's) own than to allow him to mutilate a work from the pen of his dead friend. For our part we dismiss entirely the idea of Mallet permitting even Bolingbroke to make so great changes on the song if it were his own work. Bolingbroke was not likely himself to insult the author by offering to make such changes; and Mallet could have no object in asking Bolingbroke to do what, if the original 'Rule Britannia' were his, he was capable of doing much better for himself. Rather such an action on the part of Mallet would have been equal to a public confession of his own inferiority; for we must remember that Bolingbroke was no poet. Nor should we forget the important circumstance that by this time' Rule Britannia' had sprung into popularity—the one piece in the mask which had achieved that distinction. Mallet was hardly likely to allow Bolingbroke to tamper with a song of his own which, as it stood in 1740, had taken the public fancy; but from what we know of his character we shall not do him much injury by supposing that he withheld the name of the ' one song' and permitted its mutilation lest his 'friend' should have too much credit. 'Rule Britannia' certainly comes under this description. If Mallet wrote the original song he was likely now-in 1751-to say so plainly, considering the success it had meantime attained; while, on the other hand, by saying nothing he left the question as much in his own favour as in Thomson's.

As a matter of fact Mallet never made any specific claim to the authorship of 'Rule Britannia.' The entire mask of Alfred, it is true, was printed in the edition of his works published in 1759; but this does not help us in the least, seeing that, even as so printed, the work, according to Mallet's own admission, contained some things from the pen of Thomson. Moreover, while Mallet was still living -namely, in 1762-the original Alfred of 1740, including 'Rule Britannia as a matter of course, was printed by Murdoch in his edition of Thomson. Thus, if the mere printing of the mask established the claim to the ode, we have the matter equally balanced. Something is sought to be made of the fact that 'Rule Britannia' is not included in the editions of Thomson published under the editorship of Lord Lyttleton in 1757 and 1759. This of course is, at the best, only a negative kind of argument; and in estimating its value

we need only take into account the utter worthlessness, as an authority, of the editions referred to. The poet confided to Lyttleton the task of bringing out after his death a revised edition of his works. The choice proved to have been in every way unfortunate. In the exercise of his discretionary power Lord Lyttleton 'submitted the text to the most unwarrantable experiments; and, not satisfied with making numerous verbal changes, clearing up obscurities, and correcting the grammar-the points to which Thomson's anxiety seems to have been chiefly directed-he reconstructed entire lines, transposed whole passages, rejected others, and finally struck out the closing hymn, 'because it appeared to good judges that all the matter and thoughts in that hymn are much better expressed in The Seasons themselves.' The work of such an editor as this may be dismissed at once as utterly unreliable. Nor, in the present connection, is there any necessity for giving heed to it, remembering that Murdoch came with his splendid edition of Thomson, in two volumes quarto, very shortly after Lord Lyttleton had thus used his discretion.'

Mallet's claim to Rule Britannia,' it has thus been seen, is only an implied one. All the same it is tolerably clear that he wished the public to look upon him as the author of the ode; and it therefore comes in as a point of interest that Mallet can be shown to have directly claimed as his own some things to which he had no Even the much-lauded ballad of William and title whatever. Margaret,' which is always quoted in connection with his name, has been proved by Mr. Chappell to be a barefaced plagiarism of a ballad that was in existence long before Mallet's day. There is no doubt whatever about this; for the original ballad is now in the library of the British Museum, where it is open to all enquirers. Then there is the question of the poem entitled 'A Winter's Day.' How did Mallet deal with that production? Let Mr. Bell, one of Thomson's biographers, tell us. In 1740, he says, the poem was

communicated to the Gentleman's Magazine as having been written by a Scottish clergyman, and 'corrected by an eminent hand.' Mallet, according to the construction put upon certain allusions in his letters, apparently claimed the poem as his own, and it has always been included in his works as a piece written in a state of melancholy.' This assumption of a right in the verses may be easily explained by the supposition, which other circumstances justify, that Mallet was the eminent hand' of the Gentleman's Magazine, and that, not being very scrupulous in such matters, he carried off all the honours of the authorship. That the poem was written by Mr. Riccaultoun, however, admits of no reasonable doubt; but that gentleman having written little in this way, and not being very willing to come before the public as a poet, was probably indifferent to the fate of his verses if indeed, in the seclusion of Hobkirk, he ever heard of the unauthorised use that was made of them.

Is it necessary to show the bearing of all this on the question of Mallet's claim to 'Rule Britannia'? If Mallet thought it worth

his while to claim, on the strength of one or two 'corrections," the rough and unskilful lines of an obscure poet, it does not require much argument to prove that he would have no qualms about carrying off the honours of a piece so celebrated as the patriotic ode, especially when the real author was no longer alive to assert his rights.

In this connection the character of Mallet should not be overlooked. For all that his friends may say to the contrary, he was a venal hack scribbler of the time, and one must have great reluctance in accepting his own testimony about himself. Macaulay speaks of him as a Scotchman of no literary fame, and of infamous character.' Johnson said he was ready for any dirty job, and that he was the only Scot whom Scotchmen did not commend.' Dr. Robertson, who knew him well, says that Mallet was 'not sound at heart,' and that he made a cat's paw of Thomson.' This description agrees with the character given of him by Lord Loughborough, who says in one of his letters, 'From the knowledge I have of him I feel an unaccountable propensity to believe the contrary of what he tells me.' In short, we have in Mallet a character sufficiently doubtful to put us on our guard in reference to any unsupported evidence, either direct or implied, which he may have put forward in favour of himself. Dr. Dinsdale, his biographer, has followed the too common plan of biographers by making a hero of his subject, but there is more than a set-off in the contemporary evidence on the other side.

It has often been remarked that the internal evidence of 'Rule Britannia' is all in favour of Thomson's authorship. This, at best, is a dangerous kind of argument; and, unfortunately, there is too much similarity between Thomson and Mallet to make it of much use in the present case. 'Mallet's blank verse seems to my ear the echo of Thomson,' says Johnson. 'Their minor poems,' remarks one of Thomson's biographers, are much of the same order, and have the same common features. Their verses to their Amandas might be exchanged without injustice; and it is not possible to determine by internal evidence their respective claims to the songs in the mask of Alfred, which was a joint production.' At the same time it is worthy of remark that Thomson has frequently dealt with patriotic themes; witness his 'Liberty' and 'Britannia,' two productions which, in spirit, very much resemble the celebrated ode. He was an enthusiastic advocate of liberty, making constant appeals to freedom and Great Britain, while he was also a warm admirer of heroes and legislators. As Mr. Logie Robertson has pointed out, there is not a single image or idea in Rule Britannia' which does not occur, or recur, elsewhere in the general body of his poetry. Nothing like this can be said of Mallet.. That Thomson's known songs, for the most part, carry with them no lyrical rhythm is not much to the

point in this question. No fact is more fully established than this, that even a writer of very moderate ability, while producing scores of songs, may produce no more than one of undying merit.

The question of the authorship of 'Rule Britannia' will probably, however, never be definitely settled. Thomson left it in doubt; so did Mallet. Neither directly claimed the ode, and although many of their contemporaries must have known the facts, they found no occasion to speak out on the matter, with the result that one more of our national songs has been added to the list of controverted subjects. If only Murdoch, the friend and biographer of Thomson, had told what he knew! If only Mallet had been plain and straightforward, and declared either himself or Thomson to be the author! Happily for our posterity we are more careful about our honours in these later days.

J. CUTHBERT HADDEN.