|
|
| Prev
| WELD or WELDE
| Next
|
| Volume 4, Page 464
|
|
"the authorship" of Short Story is made the matter of controversy, and
that man of straw is put forward, wh. may be left to the critic; for my
chief inq. was confin. to the publicat. or editorship; having only in a
single instance named Weld as author of Rise, Reign, and Ruin, and
then in note on Vol. I. 258, in the closest relation to a passage from the
preface, signed by hims. and the very last words of the conclusion on p.
66. So that the differ. betw. the critic and myself is very slight, as to
material passages by me ascrib. to Weld, "BEYOND WHAT HE HAS HIMS.
ACKNOWLEDGE." In the futher opin. of the same writer "that whatever
Mr. Weld did, he did under the direction or by the adv. of the
dominant party here," all may readi. aggree. A little outbreat of bitterness
in the Preface, or in the 'additions to the conclusion of the
Book," may seem very natural in that age; and in the larger report of
the case of Mrs. H. in Hutch. Hist. II. 482-520, wh. should be read by
every one that desires to know the full extent of the tyranny, we easily
discern, how eager in the prosecut. were Dudley, the Dept.-Gov. wh.
was of Weld's ch. at Roxbury, Endicott, Bartholomew, and Nowell, of
the laity, as, of the clerg. Symmes, fellow-passeng. with her, Shepard and
Hugh Peter, the fellow-passeng. of W. on the homeward voyage. No
one could be misled by my words, as if I asserted that Weld, more than
Peters or anybody else, wrote the petition in favor of Wheelwright, or
the Apology, or the Proceedings of the Court in the larger part, or the
popular report of poor Mrs. Dyer's affliction. He is responsible, as
Editor, for all but the strictly official docum. Now without intend. any
invidious allegat. as to a single word in the vol. "beyond what he has
hims. acknowl." I renew my remark, that he bears the responsib. for all
exc. from p. 46 to the third line of p. 59 inclus. bec. it was print. under
his direct. and most of it is evident. his own composit.
The friend, wh. the critic says pointed out my error, was, yrs. ago,
satisfied that I had good grounds for my opinion. The diligent asisst.
librar. of Harv. Coll. in his MS. on the reverse of the title-page of
"Antinomians and Familists condemned," had noted, that it was the
same work with Weld's Short Story, and infer. that it was an earlier
impression, because Short Story gain. the Note to the Reader and the
Preface; and he then adds (without hestitat.) from that address, that it
appears, Thomas Welde "was not the author of what is contained in the
present vol." His caution was not excit. by the admiss. of Weld hims.
as to the "additions to the conclusion of the book," and he believe. what
the rev. casuist cunning desir. rather than what he said. My suggestion
that this title-page was a sneaking device to give support to the false
implicat. in the Note to the Reader, is by the Geneal. Reg. critic submerg.
in the conject. that it "might have been, and no doubt was, a
|
|
