University of Virginia Library

ROBERT COPLAND AND THE JUDGEMENT OF LOVE

by Joseph J. Gwara

In 1993, Frank Stubbings announced the sensational discovery of three sixteenth-century English printed fragments in the library of Emmanuel College, Cambridge.1 Extracted from the contemporary London binding of an octavo volume printed in Frankfurt in 1540, these fragments together formed a single complete folio, signed F2, from a lost quarto edition of a prose romance featuring the pseudo-Roman characters Affranio and Hortensia.2 Although the work itself was unknown, Dennis E. Rhodes, who collaborated with Stubbings, identified the font as Wynkyn de Worde's 95mm textura in its final state, observing that the grotesque initial 'I' on the recto was found elsewhere in de Worde's corpus. On the strength of this information, Stubbings concluded that the folio was printed by de Worde between 1521 and 1535. At the same time, he acknowledged that the fragments did not match any surviving de Worde book from the period.

Six years later, Rhodes identified the Emmanuel College text as a previously unrecorded English translation of La historia de Grisel y Mirabella, a late medieval Spanish romance by Juan de Flores (fl. 1475).3 With translations and adaptations in French, German, Italian, and Polish (among other languages), Flores's work became an international best-seller in the sixteenth century, marketed initially as

a manual of style and later as a foreign language primer.4 Comparing the English passage to other vernacular versions of the romance, Rhodes argued that the Emmanuel text derived from the Italian translation of the Spanish original. He based this deduction on the fact that the Italian text, first printed in Milan in 1521, substituted the names Affranio and Hortensia for Torrellas and Braçayda (Cressida), the analogous Spanish characters. He went on to speculate that the Emmanuel translation—or paraphrase, as he described it—of the Italian was undertaken around 1525 and printed by de Worde around 1530. He implied that another English translation, found in the 1556 quadrilingual edition published in Antwerp by Jan Steels (STC 11092), was distantly related to the Emmanuel College text, being perhaps a revision by a non-native speaker of English.5

In an article published in March 2005, Joyce Boro refuted nearly all of Rhodes's conclusions by demonstrating that the immediate source of the English text was not the 1521 Italian version of Flores's romance but rather a French translation of the Italian text known as Le Iugement d'amour.6 Boro listed nine French editions of this work, mostly from the late 1520s and early 1530s.7 She went on to show that the English text in the Emmanuel College fragment was a

literal rendering of this French source, exhibiting only a handful of stylistic variations. Key variants allowed her to identify the Lyon edition of Olivier Arnoullet as the most likely basis of the English text, but erroneous information from outdated secondary sources led her to propose an imprecise terminus post quem of 1527 for the original quarto.8 More reliably, she disproved Rhodes's conjecture that the 1556 English translation of the romance, reprinted in 1608, was a revision of the Emmanuel text, although she continued to accept his attribution of the leaf to de Worde.

In the present study, I discuss a number of technical issues concerning the production of the Emmanuel College fragment. Based on an analysis of its types and ornamental initial, I reassign the leaf to the Rose Garland press of Robert Copland (d. 1547?). The state of this initial, coupled with new information about the work's French source, leads me to propose a revised printing date of either 1531 or 1533. Using the French translation as a guide, I go on to reconstruct the English edition from which the Emmanuel College leaf derives. I conclude by observing that the anonymous translator was almost certainly Copland himself. This deduction suggests that although Copland's known translations of French romances date from the time of his apprenticeship with de Worde (probably 1505–13), he continued to translate such works throughout his printing career.

Physical Description. Measuring 183/4 × 154mm, the Emmanuel College fragment consists of a single folio (183/4 × 136mm), with thirty-two lines of type occupying a printed area of 150 × 96mm, plus a narrow stub that runs the entire height of the leaf about 18mm beyond the gutter fold (see figures 1 and 2). A remnant of the original conjugate leaf, this stub exhibits only the first letter of each word in the last fourteen lines on the verso: i, f, b, n/m, p, v, n/m, c, w, p, t, c, t, o. The remaining text on the stub is illegible, having been either closely cropped or completely trimmed off. Running horizontally across the center of the folio are two slightly angled cuts—the work of a careless binder—essentially separating the leaf into two halves, one of which was found in each board. One cut falls just below line 16 and the other just above line 18. Converging in line 17, they form a triangular wedge of paper measuring 4mm at the widest point. These cuts partially obscure the last word of line 16 on the recto ("them") and obliterate the first half of line 17 on the verso.9 Each fragment is also damaged by four pairs of parallel bradawl holes, measuring 10–12mm across the rows, for the cords of the octavo binding. At the foot of the leaf, the bradawl holes are considerably smaller, and the bottom row is cropped, making the holes look like indentations along the edge of the paper. In spite of this damage—and minor worming close to the text in the outer margin—the folio is almost completely legible, and all the lost material can be reconstructed on the basis of the remaining letter outlines and the text's French source.

FIGURE 1. Emmanuel College, Cambridge, MS 405A, sig. F2r. Reproduced by courtesy of the Master and Fellows of Emmanuel College, Cambridge.

To date, no one has observed in print that the Emmanuel leaf has a partial watermark consisting of a shield bearing the French royal arms and surmounted by a coronet with strawberry leaves and pearls (see figure 3). The base of the coronet is 25.5mm wide. The measurement across the center of the shield is 24mm, and the distance from the base of the coronet to the tip of the shield measures 29/30mm.

FIGURE 2. Emmanuel College, Cambridge, MS 405A, sig. F2v. Reproduced by courtesy of the Master and Fellows of Emmanuel College, Cambridge.

Most of the upper part of the watermark has been trimmed away, while the design beneath the shield, which might have contained a maker's mark, has been mutilated by a bradawl hole. This lower area has also been partially obscured by the fibers used to reattach the fragments. For the sake of completeness, I provide two sets of chain line measurements taken from left to right across the recto, rotated 90° clockwise.10

FIGURE 3. Emmanuel College, Cambridge, MS 405 a, watermark. Reproduced by courtesy of the Master and Fellows of Emmanuel College, Cambridge.

The first set represents the distances between chain lines running along the gutter edge of the quarto leaf (top); the second, along the outside margin (bottom):

The watermark itself is divided by the cut that falls between the two central chain lines. During the course of conservation, the design (R. Carter Hailey's "mugshot") was reported to resemble Briquet no. 1771 (Neubourg, 1548) and, to a lesser degree, no. 1769 (Fontaine-Guérard, 1555).11 My own inspection reveals a considerably different design not illustrated in Briquet but broadly conforming to his nos. 1710–88, with a date range of 1458 to 1580 (though mostly dating before 1540).12 The appended design (beneath the shield) may represent a single letter or cipher as in Briquet nos. 1735 (Utrecht, 1519) and 1736 (Argences, 1528), although a cross or cruciform floral pattern similar to nos. 1710-17 (1516-33) remains plausible. A more accurate description, if permitted by the state of the leaf, would require beta-radiography or another enhancement technique. I have not observed this exact watermark in a systematic review of post-1525 Wynkyn de Worde books in the Folger Shakespeare Library.

Typographical Analysis. Referring to an independent typographical analysis carried out by Dennis E. Rhodes, Stubbings asserted that the font used to print the Emmanuel College fragment was Wynkyn de Worde's 95mm textura in its final state, datable between 1521 and 1535.13 This conclusion does not stand up to scrutiny. The condition of the fragment makes it impossible to measure twenty consecutive lines of type, but the ten-line measurement of 47.5mm confirms the 95mm body size. The characteristic lowercase sorts are s3, w3, and y2, with w3 also serving as a capital.14 Although these type sorts are individually attested in de Worde's books between 1526 and 1535—the period that most concerns us here—they are almost always commingled with other sorts. In table 1, I list the five sorts for lowercase s, w, and y found in a comprehensive sample of de Worde's post-1525 textura books, indicating with a check mark those sorts that appear

at least once on every folio of a given volume. As we can see, the s-sort used throughout this period is s3, exactly as attested in the Emmanuel College fragment. In addition, many of de Worde's books from 1526 to 1531 exhibit a mixture of y1 and y2 sorts in the lower case. In 1532, y1 all but vanishes, either because the sort had been purged (as suggested by the y1 fouls in books from 1532 and 1533) or because the case(s) stocked with y1 sorts had been disposed of—or both, assuming that multiple cases are involved. Like the s3 sorts generally, then, the y2 sorts that continue to appear in de Worde's post-1531 books are consistent with the y2 sorts in the Emmanuel College fragment. Nevertheless, all of de Worde's books from 1531 to 1535 also exhibit a uniform blend of small w3 and w3 sorts in the lowercase w-box. Since the Emmanuel fragment is printed with w2 sorts only and has no small w2 sorts, we can conclude that if de Worde printed this leaf, he could not have done so after 1531.

The situation is more complex for the subset of books that de Worde printed from 1526 to 1531. As I have mentioned, most de Worde items from this period exhibit a combination of y1 and y2 sorts in the lower case; for the most part, lowercase w is also a mixture of two different type sorts, small w2 and w3. Although these sort combinations point away from de Worde as the printer of the Emmanuel fragment, it turns out that de Worde actually owned a textura case stocked with s3, w3, and y2 sorts—exactly as seen in the Emmanuel fragment—but fouled (or possibly supplemented) with a number of small w2 sorts. At least fifteen books, in whole or in part, were apparently set from this case: STC 17532 (15 Feb. 1526), 23168.7 (1526), 23169 (1526) (sigs. A1,2,7,8 plus the outer forme of sigs. A3,4,5,6), 25577 (1526), 922.4 (1527)[part 2], 6830 (1528), 14109.5 [c. 1528], 14125.5 [1528?], 23173 (1528), 23148a [1529], 23174 (1529), 23908 (3 Aug. 1529), 17541 (1530) (sigs. A1v,) A3, A4, B1r, B2, B3, D2, D3, FIv, F4r only), 25422 (20 Dec. 1530), and 1988.6 [1533?].15 Given the low proportion of small w2 sorts among the standard w3 sorts in this case, books with a comparatively low density of English text-the seven Latin grammars (STC 23168.7, 23169, 25577, 23173, 23148a, 23174, and 23908) plus the single French grammar (STC i4i25.5)—can have a random folio or two with all w2 sorts and no telltale small w2 sorts. Portions of these books, therefore, look like the Emmanuel fragment. By contrast, books with a normal concentration of English text—STC 17532, 922.4, 6830, 17541, 25422, and 1988.6—invariably have at least one small w2 sort per printed folio, and often many more. Compared to the grammars, these English items are more clearly distinguishable from the fragment in question. Hence, if we disregard the grammars and focus on books purely in English, the only de Worde item in table 1 that exhibits all the typographical features of the Emmanuel fragment is STC 14109.5. Setting aside this unique coincidence (which I discuss in greater detail below), I conclude that our anonymous printer is almost certainly not Wynkyn de Worde but rather someone who used similar types.

Elsewhere I have shown that the font in the Emmanuel College fragment exactly matches the textura used by Robert Copland after 22 March 1521 (STC 1386).16

Table 1. Textura Sorts for s, w, and y in selected books printed by Wynkyn de Worde, 1526–1535

                                                                                                                                                                                                                   

STC	Format/Collation	s3	sm. w2	w3	y1	y2	Notes
1526
5575 (l526)	4°: A–D8/4E6F4	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓
6897 (30 May 1526)	4°: A–I6	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓
6897.5 (30 May 1526)	4°: A–I6	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	Quires A, E, G from STC 6895; the rest from STC 6897.
15399 [l526?]	4°: ✠4A–M8/4N4	×	×	×	×	×	Actually printed c. 1517.
17532 (15 Feb 1526)	4°: π2a–z4[et]4 [con]4 2a–2i42k6	✓	–*	✓	–	✓	*15–24 sorts/sheet (2k1,2,5,6 = 9 sorts)
23159a.10 (15 Kal. Aug. 1526)	4°: A8	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓
23168.7 (1526)	4°: A8B4	✓	–*	✓	–	✓	*5–12 sorts/sheet
23169 (1526)	4°: A8B4	✓	–*	✓	–	✓	*2–12 sorts/sheet
		✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	Case 2
23169.5 [c. 1526]	4°: A8B4 [-A1, B2–4]	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓
25577 (1526)	4°: A–H4/8	✓	–*	✓	–	✓	*0–9 sorts/sheet
1527
922.4 (1527)	4°: a–b4c6 [pt. 2]	✓	–*	✓	–	✓	*9–27 sorts/sheet Pt. 1 not examined.
966 (1527)	4°: A–F8/4	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓
5733 [c. 1527]	4°: B–H4I6 [imperf.]	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓
6836 (6 Aug. 1527)	4°: A–C6/4 [-B1–4]	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓
10838.7 [1527?]	4°: A–C4	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓
10895 [l527?]	4°: A–C4/6D8	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓
14649.5 [l527?]	4°: ? [A2,3 only]	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓
23159a.13 (17 Kal. Apr. 1527)	4°: A8 [-A1,2]	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓
23160 (6 Nov. 1527)	4°: A8	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓
23197 [l527?]	4°: A–C6 [-A1]	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓
24880 (27 Aug. 1527)	2°: A–F8G6a–z8 [et]8 [con]8 [us]8 2a–2y8	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓
1528
6830 (1528)	4°: A–M8/4N6	✓	–*	✓	–	✓	*12–24 sorts/sheet (A1,2,7,8 = 2 sorts; N1,2,5,6 = 9 sorts)
10002 (9 Apr. 1528)	2°: 2A6a–z6[et]6 [con]62a62b8 A–C6D4	✓	✓	✓	–	✓
14109.5 [c. 1528]	4°: ? [a3 only]	✓	–	✓	–	✓	Printed by Robert Copland?
14519 (23 Jan. 1528)	4°: A–G4/8 [-G4]	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓
14125.5 [1528?]	4°: A4B2C–Q4 [-Q4]	✓	–*	✓	–	✓	*0–8 sorts/sheet
17974 (5 Nov. 1528)	4°: A–Y8/4 2A–2K8/4 2L4	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓
21008 (1528)	4°: A–P8/4Q6	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓
22411 (24 Jan. 1528)	4°: A–X8/4Y6	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓
23148.10 [1528]	4°: A–B6C4	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓
23173 (1528)	4°: A8B4 [-A1]	✓	–*	✓	–	✓	*1–3 sorts/sheet
23960 [1528?]	4°: A–B8C–P6Q4	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓
1529
803 (18 Nov. 1529)	2°: 1 f. + 3b8 a–t8/6v8 A–C62A–E6	✓	✓	✓	✓*	✓	*”hym(selfe)” almost exclusively
5136 [1529?]	4°: A6	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓
10907 (13 Aug. 1529)	4°: A–F8/4 g–z8/4[et]6	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓
17841.3 (1529)	4°: ? [1 f.]	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓
23148.12 [1529?]	4°: A–B6C4	✓	✓	✓	✓*	✓	*”hym(selfe)” only
23148a [1529]	4°: A–B6C4	✓	–*	✓	–	✓	*1 –5 sorts/sheet
23174 (1529)	4°: A8B4	✓	–*	✓	–	✓	*4–6 sorts/sheet
23198 [1529?]	4°: A–C6	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓
23908 (3 Aug. 1529)	8°: A–C8D4	✓	–*	✓	–	✓	*0–2 sorts/sheet
1530
1912 (23 Nov. 1530)	4°: A6	✓	–*	✓	✓	✓	*10 sorts/sheet
3267 (8 Feb. 1530)	4°: A6B–M8/4 N8O–Y8/4z4 2A–2C8/42D6	✓	✓	✓	✓*	✓	*”hym(selfe)” only
3313.3 [1530?]	4°: A–C4/6 [-A1,4]	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓
5092 (24 Jan. 1530)	4°: A8B6	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓
9983.7 (25 June 1530)	4°: a4a4 [2 pts.]	✓	–*	✓	✓	✓	*6–8 sorts/sheet
10685 (16 Feb. 1530)	4°: A–B4 [-A1]	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓
12947 (20 Apr. 1530)	4°: A–F6/4G8	✓	–*	✓	✓		*2–8 sorts/sheet G6r: case 2 or w2 supplement?
14650 [i530?]	4°: ? [4 ff.]	✓	✓	✓	–*	✓	*Foul sorts
17541 (1530)	4°: A–F4	✓	–*	✓	–	✓	*0–4 sorts/folio (A1v, A3, A4, B1r, B2, B3, D2, D3, F1v, F4r)
		✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	Case 2
18475 [1530?]	4°: A–C6	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓
19119 [c. 1530]	4°: A4	✓	✓	✓	–*	✓	*Foul sorts
20413 (28 May 1530)	4°: A–D6/4	✓	✓	✓	✓*	✓	*”hym(selfe)” only
21337 (23 Mar. 1530)	4°: A6B–K6/4	✓	✓	✓	✓*	✓	*”hym(selfe)” only
22559 (21 May 1530)	4°: A–E4/6	✓	✓	✓	✓*	✓	*”hym(selfe)” only
23150 [1530?]	4°: A–B6C4 [-A1]	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓
23161 (1530)	4°: A8	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓
23174.5 (1530)	4°: A8B4	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓
24302 [c. 1530]	4°; ? [2 ff.]	✓	✓	✓	–	✓
25422 (20 Dec. 1530)	4°: A–H4	✓	–*	✓	–	✓	*11–26 sorts/sheet
1531
1913 [1531?]	4°: A–B4	✓	✓	✓	–	✓
3278 (23 Feb. 1531)	2°: 2A–2B6a–z6 A–X6 2A–F6 2G–H4	✓	✓	✓	✓*	✓	*“hym(selfe)” almost exclusively
17014.7 [1531?]	4°: A–B6	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓
1532
78 [1532–34?]	4°: A–B4+ [imperf.]	✓	✓	✓	–	✓
708.5 [1532–34]	4°: A–G8/4H6	✓	✓	✓	–	✓	Quires C, H plus inner sheet of G ptd. 28 Feb. 1510.
3183.5 (1532)	4°: A–D4	✓	✓	✓	–	✓
3273.5 (1532)	4°: A–B4	✓	✓	✓	–*	✓	*Foul sorts
4350 [1532]	4°: A4	✓	✓	✓	-	✓
4351 [1532]	4°: A4	✓	✓	✓	–	✓
5610 (1532)	4°: A–D4 [-D4]	✓	✓	✓	–	✓
6035a [1532?]	4°: A–D4	✓	✓	✓	–	✓
6932 (1532)	4°: A–D4	✓	✓	✓	–*	✓	*Foul sorts
10839 [1532?]	4°: A–C4	✓	✓	✓	–*	✓	*Foul sorts
14559 (6 Oct. 1532)	4°: A–P4 [-A1,2]	✓	✓	✓	–*	✓	*Foul sorts
17975 (23 Oct. 1532)	4°: A–Y8/4 2A–2K8/4 2L4	✓	✓	✓	–	✓
18570 (12 Apr. 1532)	4°: A–E4F6	✓	✓	✓	–*	✓	*Foul sorts
21472 [1532?]	8°: A–E8	✓	✓	✓	–	✓
22560 (1532)	4°: A–F4	✓	✓	✓	–	✓
23163 (1532)	4°: A–B4	✓	✓	✓	–	✓
25421.6 (1532)	4°: πA4A–G4 [-πA4, E1 – 4]	✓	✓	✓	–	✓
1533
656 [1533]	4°: A6	✓	✓	✓	–	✓
1988.6 [1533?]	4°: ? [O2,3 only]	✓	–*	✓	–	✓	*6 sorts in all
7500 (1533)	4°: A–F4	✓	✓	✓	–	✓
14045 (27 May 1533)	4°: a–x8/4y6z8[et]8 [con]6	✓	✓	✓	–	✓
25008 [1533?]	4°: A–D4	✓	✓	✓	–*	✓	*Foul sorts
25423 (2 May 1533)	4°: A–H4	✓	✓	✓	–	✓
25579 (1533)	4°: A–M4	✓	✓	✓	–*	✓	*Foul sorts
1534
20882 [1534?]	4°: A–C4	✓	✓	✓	–	✓
23152 (16 May 1534)	4°: A–D4	✓	✓	✓	–	✓
23174.7 (27 Nov. 1534)	4°: A–C4	✓	✓	✓	–	✓
23198.7 [1534?]	4°: A–C4+[imperf.]	✓	✓	✓	–	✓
23552 (21 Mar. 1534)	8°: A–E8F4 [pt. 1]	✓	✓	✓	–	✓	Pt. 2 not examined.
1535
5729 (1535)	4°: A–B4	✓	✓	✓	–	✓

By April 22 of that year (STC 965), Copland had acquired a brand new 95mm textura with s3, w3, and y2 in the lower case and w3 as a capital. This font, used regularly until Copland's death around 1547, exists in several different states. After 1521, for example, the uppercase W-box was fouled with two large w2 sorts; after 23july 1524 (STC 15050), the w-box had three small w2 fouls. The large w2 sorts recur periodically until the mid-1540s, but the small w2 fouls were evidently purged around 1532. Owing to the small type sample, the Emmanuel fragment does not exhibit any of these low-density fouls, but otherwise the typographical details of the leaf conform precisely to those I have identified in Copland's corpus after March 1521. On the basis of the typography alone, therefore, I would attribute the Emmanuel fragment to Copland. Evidence confirming this attribution takes the form of the grotesque initial 'I' on sig. F2r.

Grotesque Initial. Citing the conclusions of Dennis E. Rhodes, Stubbings claimed that the woodcut initial 'I' on sig. F2r of the Emmanuel College leaf appears in "several other de Worde books," including STC 1385, an edition of The fyfte eglog of Alexandre Barclay of the cytezen and vplondyshman [1518?].17 This remark, though partially true, is nevertheless broadly misleading. A cursory comparison of the grotesque 'I' in STC 1385 and the one in the Emmanuel College leaf reveals that the woodcuts are, in fact, entirely different. The grotesque in STC 1385 is a standard de Worde letter, documented in no fewer than twenty-one books printed at the Sign of the Sun between 1509 and 1530.18 The initial in the Emmanuel fragment, by contrast, is attested in only two books bearing de Worde's colophon, both dated 1521: (1) The myrrour of the chyrche (STC 965, 1521 [before 22 April]) and (2) The passyon of our lorde (STC 14558, 6 Oct. 1521). After 1521, the Emmanuel grotesque is found almost always in books printed by Robert Copland and his heir William Copland (see appendix 1).19 As I have argued elsewhere, the late appearance of this grotesque, coupled with other woodcut and typographical evidence, indicates that Copland likely printed STC 965 and STC 14558 for de

Worde, perhaps sharing the editions with him.20 As Stubbings asserted, therefore, "other de Worde books" do exhibit the grotesque initial found in the Emmanuel fragment (though categorically not STC 1385), but only because they represent the unrecognized work of Robert Copland.

The fact that Robert and William Copland used this cut for grotesque 'I' fairly regularly allows us to date the Emmanuel fragment with greater accuracy. As illustrated in appendix 1, this initial (I-2) exists in seven identifiable states which testify to the block's progressive deterioration from 1521 to c. 1550. In the Emmanuel fragment, the cut has the characteristic features of state d as found in STC 14563 (1529): (1) the long crack or scratch running vertically through the figure's crest, neck, and wing, and (2) the loss of the top line in the fifth triangle of the right serrated border. Consequently, the fragment must have been printed after STC 770 (7 Aug. 1528), in which the same initial is in state c. In addition, the right serrated border in the Emmanuel letter exhibits more wear than state d. In this regard, the block is somewhat closer to state e, documented in STC 5204.5, which is undated but which was most likely printed around 1542. This proposed date, though a few years earlier than the conjectural date of 1545 assigned by STC, is supported by two pieces of evidence. First, the state of the grotesque 'I' proves that STC 5204.5 was printed before STC 5732, whose grotesque—in state f, showing the loss of the upper serrated border—is noticeably less worn than state g, documented in three books printed by William Copland and William Hill around 1549. This coincidence leads me to deduce that STC 5732 was probably printed around 1545 and that STC 5204.5 preceded it by a few years.21 Second, the publisher/bookseller Richard Kele (d. 1552), for whom Copland printed STC 5204.5, is first documented in the book trade in 1540 (STC I2206a.7).22 The earliest books referencing the London address given on the title page of STC 5204.5 ("in the Powltry ... dwellyng at the longe shop under saynt Myldredes chyrche") date from c. 1542.23 In all likelihood, STC 5204.5 belongs to the same period.24 Hence, judging by the state of the grotesque, I conclude that the Emmanuel leaf was printed between 1529 and c. 1542, arguably in the mid-1530s. This date, as I shall now discuss, can be refined on the basis of textual evidence.

Text and Dating. The identification of Le lugement d'amour as the source of the English text proves that Copland printed this book no earlier than 1530 and most likely in 1531 or 1533. In a series of studies published between 1991 and 2003 but overlooked by Boro, William Kemp analyzed five of the eight surviving edi-

tions of Le lugement d'amour with an eye to establishing their relative chronology. In 1991, he showed that the first edition was published in Paris by Jérôme Denis shortly after 14 September 1529, the date of the royal privilege on the title page verso (sig. a1v).25 The printer, according to Kemp, was either Geofroy Tory or someone who used his types. This edition, furthermore, preceded the undated Paris edition of Antoine Bonnemère, which must have been printed after September 1530, when Bonnemère moved to the address referred to on the book's title page ("Au mont sainct Hylaire, a lhostel Dalbret").26 Kemp also demonstrated that the putative 1527 edition printed in Lyon by Olivier Arnoullet is a phantom, deriving from the misreading of the third "x" as "v" in the colophon date "Mil .ccccc.&.xxxij" (sig. g4v).27 In point of fact, the earliest Arnoullet edition bears the date 2 December i532, an indication that this edition was among the first to be printed legally after the expiration of the Denis privilege.

In 2000, Kemp focused his attention on an anonymous and undated edition of Le lugement d'amour known in only two copies, one in the Bibliothèque Méjanes, Aix-en-Provence (C.6408), and the other in the British Library (G.10111).28 He concluded that it was almost certainly a pirated edition printed in Caen about 1530 by the successors of Laurent Hostingue. In a later study, Kemp showed that the anonymous 1530 edition preserved in a single copy in the Musée Condé de Chantilly (IV, B.77) was printed in Lyon by Laurent Hyllaire.29 The absence of a printer's name and place of publication indicates that this edition, too, was likely pirated. Both books show that printers outside Paris were willing (and able) to circumvent the three-year privilege granted to Denis in September 1529.30

In appendix 2 (section C), I edit Le Iugement d'amour based on the 1532 Arnoullet edition, listing in the Apparatus Criticus all variants, both accidental and substantive, from four of the six accessible sources.31 This exercise confirms the conclusion reached by Boro that neither the Bonnemère nor the Caen edition could have been used as the basis of the Copland text. As Boro pointed out, line 39 in the Bonnemère version reads "ne sachant faire autre chose" (sig. E2v) as compared to "ne pouant faire aultre chose" in the other sources.32 Of these two variant readings, only the latter would have generated the English "nat beynge of power to do any other thing." By the same token, the Caen edition prints "la grande malice" (sig. D4v) in line 40, whereas the other French editions have only "la malice." Since the English transmits "the malyce"—without the adjective "grete" or a similar qualifier—the Caen edition could not have served as the translator's source.33

Similar evidence leads me to exclude the 1529 Tory-Denis edition, not consulted by Boro, as the source of the English translation. This edition prints "prudent & discret" (sig. d5r) in lines 22-23, whereas all the other French sources have "discret & prudent." The English phrasing "dyscrete and prudent" indicates that the translation could not have been based on the Tory-Denis text. Like the Caen edition, moreover, the 1535 Janot text has "la grande malice" in line 40, eliminating this edition as a source of the English.34 The 1530 Hyllaire edition, by contrast, is a textual relative (or possibly a direct textual ancestor) of the 1532 Arnoullet edition, carrying most of its substantive variants.35 A key piece of evidence points to one of these two editions as the source of the English translation—namely, the French "en dispute" in line 10, rendered in English as "in dysputacion." Since the singular noun in English hints at a singular noun in the French and since the Paris and Caen texts transmit either "en disputer" ('in disputing') or "en disputes" ('in disputations'), we can discount the three Paris editions and the Caen edition as sources of the English text.36 Consequently, only the Lyon editions of 1530 and 2 December 1532 could have given rise to the stylistic idiosyncrasies of the English translation.37 This conclusion leads me to propose 1530 as the terminus post quem for the English text. If we allow twelve months for (1) the export of either Lyon edition to England, (2) the preparation

of the English translation, and (3) the printing of the book, then we can surmise that Copland could have printed his edition as early as 1531 (depending on the exact production date of the 1530 Hyllaire edition) or as late as 1533 (given that the Arnoullet edition is dated 2 December). Of these two dates, 1533 is more consistent with the state of the grotesque initial on sig. F2r.

Table 2. Distribution of material in four editions of Le Iugement d'amour

         

Volume	Format/Collation	Location of English passage	Est. words per folio	Est. total words
BCol. 15-2-7(7)	8°: A-F8G4	C8r (4 ll.), C8v, D1r, D1v (7 1/2 ll.)	412	21,218 (51 1/2 ff.)
BL G.10111	8°: A–G8	D3r (17 ll.), D3v, D4r, D4v (1 l.)	393	21,812 (55 1/2 ff.)
Fo. PQ6390.F67	8°: A–I8	E1r (9 ll.), E1v, E2r, E2v, E3r (2 ll.)	294	21,021 (71 1/2 ff.)
Edin. De.1/1.46	8°: a–g8 h4	d4r (5 ll.), d4v, d5r, d5v (15 ll)	368	21,344 (58 ff.)

A Reconstruction of Copland's Lost Edition. Since the Emmanuel College leaf closely follows its French source, we can attempt to reconstruct Copland's lost Rose Garland edition. For his part, Rhodes speculated that the original English book was a quarto in fours with at least twenty-four leaves (4°: A–F4+).38 On the basis of four surviving editions of Le Iugement d'amour, we can now posit a complete structure.

As indicated in table 2, the text of Le Iugement d'amour has an estimated average of 21,349 words and a median of 21,281 words. Compared to the French passage, which has 505 words, the English has 597, a difference of 92 words amounting to 18.25 percent more material. Although we cannot be sure that the entire English translation was longer by the same factor, the literalness of the surviving text suggests a high degree of consistency in the translator's practice. Multiplying 21,349 and 21,281 (the average and median word counts of the French text) by 1.1825 and dividing by 597 (the number of English words in the Emmanuel College fragment) gives 42.29 and 42.15, respectively. Copland's book, therefore, likely had a minimum of forty-two leaves.

In addition, the leaf signature F2 strongly suggests that the book was gathered in fours and had no illustrations. If we compare the Emmanuel passage to its source, we see that it appears almost exactly halfway through Flores's text.39 In a quarto in fours, sig. F2 would correspond to f. 22, falling very close to the center of the book, just where we would expect to find it. In the other common structures for medium-length quartos of this period—sixes and alternating eights and fours—the same passage would appear on sig. F2 only if the book had been profusely illustrated. In a quarto in sixes, for example, sig. F2 would correspond to f. 32, meaning that ten folios would necessarily have been devoted to illustra-

tions. The situation is similar in a quarto in alternating eights and fours, in which sig. F2 would correspond to f. 34. For the Copland passage to fall on sig. F2, this structure would have required about twelve folios of illustrations. By way of comparison, the 1532–34 Wynkyn de Worde edition of Kynge Appolyn of Thyre (STC 708.5)—a quarto romance with fifty leaves gathered mostly in alternating eights and fours—has the equivalent of only six-and-a-half folios of illustrations preceding sig. F2 and nine folios in the entire volume.40 Kynge Appolyn, moreover, had a comprehensive illustration scheme, with eighteen text-specific woodcuts, ten complementary cuts, and numerous factotums, all amounting to a comparatively high ratio of illustrations to text.41 Hence, if Copland’s quarto had been gathered in sixes or alternating eights and fours, we would have to posit an unusually large number of illustrations, far beyond the norm in the most heavily illustrated books issued by a printer famous for his stock of woodcuts. Furthermore, Copland’s book was new to the English market. If Copland had wanted text-specific illustrations, he would have needed to commission them specially, thus greatly increasing his publication costs. Though not impossible, this kind of investment seems unlikely. By all appearances, then, the absence of illustrations from the Emmanuel College fragment is characteristic of the entire book, which probably had only a single title page illustration: a pair of factotums representing Affranio and Hortensia in disputation.42

Allowing one leaf for the title page and another for a colophon and printer’s device, I conclude that Copland’s book was a quarto in fours with forty-four leaves, collating as follows: 4°: A–L4 (44 ff.). This structure would make signature F the central gathering of the book, with the exact middle falling between sigs. F2 and F3. In Copland’s corpus, the closest model is STC 770, an edition of The secrete of secretes (7 Aug. 1528), a quarto in fours with thirty-six leaves, collating A–I4. The book from which the Emmanuel fragment derives, therefore, is one of the longest printed by Copland after 1525. Counting by edition sheets, it represents more than twenty percent of his surviving output between 1528 and 1532.43

Conclusions. The literal translation of Le lugement d’amour suggests that the quarto’s original title was The Judgement of Love. Who was its anonymous translator? The deduction that Robert Copland printed the book makes him the leading candidate. During his apprenticeship with de Worde (evidently between 1505 and 1513), Copland translated several French works into English, cutting his teeth on at least two prose romances: The knyght of the swanne (6 Feb. 1512, STC

7571 c. 1522, STC 7571.5) and Kynge Appolyn of Thyre (28 Feb. 1510, 1532–34; STC 708.5). Copland’s English translations of French verse also included three poems touching on relations between the sexes—the subject matter vividly dramatized in The Judgement of Love: (1) A complaynt of them that be to soone maryed (1535, STC 5729), (2) The complaynte of them that ben to late maryed (1506?, STC 5728; 1518?, StC 5728.5), and, possibly, (3) The fyftene Ioyes of maryage (1507–08?, STC 15257.5; 1509, STC 15258).44 Copland continued to participate in the Tudor dialogue about gender roles (and especially the wiles of women) with three verse narratives of his own: (1) The seuen sorowes that women haue when theyr husbandes be deade (written c. 1526, earliest known edition c. 1565; STC 5734), (2) lyl of braintfords Testament (written c. 1535, earliest surviving editions c. 1563, STC 5731; c. 1567?, STC 5730), and (3) The hye way to the Spyttellhous (1545?, StC 5732). Although no stylistic idiosyncrasies link The Judgement of Love directly to Copland, the work’s genre and themes coincide with his interests as a translator and author.

Several factors could explain Copland’s decision to translate and print The Judgement of Love in the early 1530s. Although works on gender issues were perennial favorites with English audiences, the period between 1530 and 1535 saw a particular increase in popular trifles about the nature of love and amorous relationships.45 In addition to Copland’s contributions to the subject (STC 5729, doubtless accompanied by a lost 1535 edition of STC 5728), de Worde printed (or reprinted) titles like A contrauersye bytwene a louer and a Iaye (1532?, STC 10839), The payne and sorowe of euyll maryage (c. 1530, STC 19119), Chaucer’s The assemble of foules (24 Jan. 1530, STC 5092), Lydgate’s The Complaynte of a louers lyfe (1531?, STC 17014.7), William Walter’s The spectacle of louers (1533?, STC 25008) and his Guystarde and Sygysmonde (1532, STC 3183.5). All these works attest to a renewed interest in literature depicting the fraught relations between the sexes around 1530. No stretch of the imagination is required to think that this publishing program, at times serious and satirical, was a market response to King Henry’s Great Matter, which raised such issues as sexual desire, seduction, and wifely duty in the context of traditional marriage, religion, and royal politics.46 The Judgement

of Love explores the same themes—passion, seduction, and gender roles—in a royal setting and in pseudo-legalistic terms.47 We cannot know how audiences responded to the romance as a whole or how Copland presented his translation to the reading public, but the work would have resonated with consumers enthralled by the king’s high-profile troubles with women.

The Judgement of Love may also represent an early attempt to introduce English readers to the mannered or rhetorical style of discourse that became popular in England after c. 1540.48 Associated with Spanish writers, this style radiated throughout continental Europe by way of Italian and French translations of Spanish works, most notably sentimental romances like The Judgement of Love. In this regard, Copland arguably stood at the forefront of the same Humanist enterprise as his French printer peers, offering English readers a model of elegant discourse in the vernacular.49 Perhaps, too, The Judgement of Love was intended as an aid for learning foreign languages. Copland’s interest in printing French educational materials dates as far back as 22 March 1521, when he issued an edition of Alexander Barclay’s Introductory to wryte and to pronounce Frenche (STC 1386), the earliest French grammar printed in England.50 Did Copland market his English translation of Le Iugement d’amour alongside imported copies of the original French source, expecting learners to improve their French skills by reading the texts side by side? The pairing of unilingual editions of Flores’s romance, intended to be consulted together, represents a logical intermediate step in the development of the parallel-column texts that future generations of European printers would issue in huge numbers. The pan-European circulation of Italian and French versions of Flores’s work meant that copies would have been readily available to any Englishman who wanted to learn either of these languages with the help of Copland’s translation.

A consequence of the Emmanuel fragment discovery is the insight it offers into Copland’s post-1530 typography. As I have already mentioned, one item in de Worde’s corpus—STC 14109.5—appears to use the same font, a 95mm textura with s3, w3, and y2 in the lower case and w3 as a capital. Although this work,

a one-folio fragment (sig. a3) of An enterlude of temperance, is traditionally ascribed to de Worde, this attribution remains open to debate in the absence of corroborative evidence. Pending further study, therefore, I would tentatively ascribe STC 14109.5 to Copland on the basis of its typographical features. Admittedly, Robert Copland is not known to have printed interludes, but William Copland is credited with at least six: (1) The playe called the foure P (1560?, STC 13301), (2) An new enterlude of impacient pouerte newly imprynted (1561?, STC 14113), (3) A new enterlued for chyldren to playe named lack Iugeler (1562?, STC 14837; c. 1565?, STC 14837a), (4) An Enterlude of Welth, and Helth (1565?, STC 14110), (5) The Enterlude of Youth (1565?, STC 14112), and (6) An Enterlude called lusty Iuuentus (c. 1565, STC 25149.5).51 This substantial corpus may reflect a long tradition of printing dramatic interludes at the sign of the Rose Garland, one that began with Robert Copland, whose only potential contribution to the genre may have remained unidentified without the new evidence of The Judgement of Love.

The Emmanuel College fragment underscores the immense popularity—and profitability—of Juan de Flores’s sentimental romance outside Spain. Although bibliographers are unlikely to locate a complete copy of Copland’s lost edition, the recovery of additional fragments cannot be ruled out. The binding that once contained the Emmanuel fragment has been identified as the work of an anonymous London workshop active in the mid-1540s.52 In theory, more bindings from the same shop could conceal additional fragments from the same lost Copland book. The inevitable decay of these bindings and the concomitant need for conservation may yield further evidence about The Judgement of Love and Copland’s attempt to market Flores’s celebrated Isabelline romance to Tudor readers.53

APPENDIX 1

Grotesque ‘I’ In the Books of Robert Copland,

William Copland, and William Hill, 1514 – 1550

The following catalogue is based on an examination of all the surviving output of Robert Copland and William Hill, plus all of William Copland’s output except STC 477.9 [1556] and STC 14837 [1562?]. Six items attributed to Robert Copland are also included: STC 17540 (1514), 14082 (16 May 1515), 17972 (5 May 1515), 965 (l521 before 22 April]), 14558 (6 Oct 1521), and 6835 [l523?]. On these attributions, see Gwara, "Three Forms of w," 149–167.

A. Distribution of cuts for grotesque ‘I’

           

Robert Copland:
1514 – 1521:	STC 17540 (1514), 14082 (16 May 1515), 17972 (5 May 1515), 965 (1521 [before 22 April]), 14558 (6 Oct. 1521).
1522 – 1530:	STC 15206 (l522) 3123 [1523?] 6835 [1523?], 770 (7 Aug. 1528), 25421.2 (24 Dec 1528), 14563 (1529), 25421.3 (31 Oct. 1530).
1540s:	STC 5204.5 [c 1542?], 5732 [l545?].
William Copland:	STC 21043 [1549?], 2976 (13 May 1550), 19903 [c. 1550].
William Hill:	STC 2078 (1549).

B. Catalogue

• I-1 STC 17540 (1514), 17972 (5 May 1515), 14082 (l6 May 1515), 770 (7 Aug. I528), 25421.2 (24 Dec. 1528), 25421.3 (31 Oct. 1530); William Copland: STC 21043 [1549?L 2976 (l3 May 1550).
  This cut originally belonged to de Worde, who used it routinely between 1502 (STC 15376) and 14 September 1510 (STC 23876). After that time, it appears in only five "de Worde" books—the three that I have attributed to Copland plus STC 23877 (8 Oct. 1521) and STC 966 (1527). On Copland’s use of this initial, see Gwara, "Three Forms of w," 152–154, 166–167.
• I-2 STC 965 (1521 [before 22 April]), 14558 (6 Oct. 1521), 15206 (18 Nov. 1522), 770 (7 Aug. 1528), 14563 (1529), 5204.5 [c. 1542?], 5732 [l545?]; William Copland: STC 21043 [1549?], 19903 [c. 1550]; William Hill: STC 2078 (l549).
  Copland almost certainly acquired this cut around 1521. I have identified seven states:
• State a STC 965 (1521 [before 22 April]), 14558 (6 Oct. 1521).
  The outline below the wing of the figure (between the foot and wingtip) is intact. The lower line of the fourth triangle in the right serrated border is worn or broken off. (This wear suggests that the cut may have been used in a lost book printed before STC 965.)

---

106




• State b STC 15206 (18 Nov. 1522).
  The outline below the wing of the figure (between the foot and wingtip) has broken off. The apices of the triangles in the two serrated borders show minor wear.
• State c STC 770 (7 Aug. 1528).
  The apex of the far right triangle in the upper serrated border is badly worn or broken off. The outline across from the figure’s neck exhibits minor fracturing (not apparent in the illustration due to heavy inking).
• State d STC 14563 (1529).
  A vertical crack or scratch runs through the figure’s head (crest), neck, and wing; the outline of the neck has broken away. The upper line of the fifth triangle in the right serrated border has also broken off.
• State e STC 5204.5 [c. 1542?].
  The apices of the triangles in both serrated borders show significant wear and/or breakage. The presence of this border proves that STC 5204.5 was printed before STC 5732.
• State f STC 5732 [1545?].
  The upper serrated border and upper right corner of the block have broken off. The apices of the triangles in the right serrated border are badly worn. The state of the cut shows that STC 5732 was printed after STC 5204.5.
• State g STC 2078 (1549) 21043 [1549?L 19903 [c. 1550].
  The right serrated border is badly worn; all but two of its triangle decorations are missing.
• I-3 STC 965 (l521 [before 22 April]), 3123 [1523?], 6835 [l523?].
  This cut is documented in only three books, two of which Copland printed for others. A similar grotesque was used by de Worde, albeit infrequently, between 1506 (STC 12381) and 14 September 1510 (STC 23876).
• I-4 STC 15206 (18 Nov. 1522), 6835 [1523?], 25421.2 (24 Dec. 1528).
  Before passing to Copland, this cut belonged to de Worde, who used it routinely between 28 February 1510 (STC 708.5, sig. H1r) and 8 October 1521 (STC 23877). The differences in the appearance of the letter as documented in 1522 and 1528 may be due solely to the presswork.
• I-5 STC 15206 (18 Nov. 1522).
  This cut also belonged to de Worde, who used it between 4 September 1507 (STC 24878.3–8.5) and 8 October 1521 (STC 23877). It is not seen in English printing after 1522.

C. Images

I-1 (16 May 1515) (STC 14082, B1v)

I-1 (7 Aug. 1528) (STC 770, 12v)

I-1 (31 Oct. 1530) (STC 25421.3, F4r)

I-1 (W. Copland, [1549?]) (STC 21043, A2r)

I-1 (W. Copland, 13 May 1550) (STC 2976, 15r)

I-2a (6 Oct. 1521) (STC 14558, 14v)

I-2b (18 Nov. 1522) (STC 15206, A2r)

I-2c (7 Aug. 1528) (STC 770, C1v)

I-2d (1529) (STC 14563, [A]1v)

I-2 [c. 1532] (Emmanuel College, MS405A, F2r)

I-2e [c. 1542?] (STC 5204.5, f. 3r)

I-2f [1545?] (STC 5732, C3r)

I-2g (W. Copland, [1549?]) (STC 21043, A3v)

I-2g (W. Copland, [c. 1550]) (STC 19903, A2r)

I-2g (W. Hill, 1549) (STC 2078, DD3v)

I-3 [1523?] (STC 6835, A3r)

I-4 (18 Nov. 1522) (STC 15206, B1v)

I-4 [1523?] (STC 6835, A6v)

I-4 (24 Dec. 1528) (STC 25421.2, G1r)

I-5 (18 Nov. 1522) (STC 15206, C3r)

APPENDIX 2

Editions of The Judgement of Love and Le Iugement D’amour

The following editions of the Emmanuel College text are based on a personal inspection of the leaf during the summer of 2004. In the diplomatic edition (section A), I retain the original spelling, punctuation, hyphenation, and abbreviations; the Tyronian sign is represented by the ampersand. Line endings are indicated with double vertical rules; editorial reconstructions are enclosed within square brackets. The reading edition (section B) modernizes capitalization and punctuation, and silently expands abbreviations. In section C, I provide a diplomatic edition of the equivalent passage from Le Iugement d’amour based on the 1532 Lyon text, with variants from three other early editions: (i) Caen, c. 1530; (2) Paris, after 14 Sept. 1529; and (3) Paris, after Sept. 1530.

A. Diplomatic Edition of the Emmanuel College Fragment

[Far] lenger place to my reasons, seyng that euen so as ye cō ║ playne of vs, ye also cōplayne of your owne honours, ║ gyuyng occasyon that your fawtes may be manyfest ║ to all the worlde / whiche as yet are vnknowen to mo= ║ che people. This sayd by Affranio, Hortensia in this ║ wyse as foloweth dyde begyn. ║

I(5) Perceyue you Affranio so very cruell, & vnto ║ vs so coniured an hole enmy, that yf ye were ║ assured yt trouth shold be dryuen out of ye worl ║ de / & faythe loste & dystroyed / & the chyrches ║ defoyled / moche sooner wolde ye consent to ye ║ ruyne of heuen & erthe, than ye wolde [a]bsteyne your ║ odyo[u]s purpose of say[i]ng euyll by women. yet by as ║ moche as though your subtyl speche doth surmoūt me ║ in dysputaciō, your euydent coleryke enuy is sufficiēt ║ to abate the weyght of your wordes / & to ma[ke them] ║ lyght & wtout credence. And yet if yt women durst deny ║ without shame that men are ye purchasers in louyng, ║ I am sure yt your secrete conscyence within you repro= ║ ueth you, & maketh you to thynke all the contrary / ad ║ monysshing you of the manyfolde gracious requestes ║ that ye can make, that whyther we wyll or not it be= ║ houeth vs to yelde as ouercome. wherfore yf in flate= ║ ryng vs thus ye can fynde wordes to deceyue vs, it is ║ no wonder yf in dyspreysynge vs, ye be inuentyf by ║ your reasons for to confoūde vs. But for all that these ║ your audacyous facyons be not gretely to be alowed, ║ in that our ferefull dulnesse and your extreme knowle ║

ge doth make a lesyng seme to be true. And yet though ║ I dyde nothyng but holde my peas, wtout doubt sym= ║ plenesse whiche is subgect to many wronges & outra= ║ [F2v] ge oughte to be worthy of supportacion, for bycaus[e] ║ that who that hath leest knowlege & vnderstandyng, ║ sholde take councell of them yt be more dyscrete and pru ║ dent. The whiche we do whan we ygnourauntly fay ║ lyng, beleue the coūcell of you yt ought to be ye wysest, ║ in suche wise that ye of all the ygnoraunt errour be vn ║ to thē the cause, which as dishonest you do disdayne. |[ By this reason vnto you of whome all the euyll pro= ║ cedeth double blame ought to be imposed / & nat with= ║ standynge your counsell, yet happeneth it often vnto ║ them that insueth it, that before the parfyte agremēt ║ they fele a meruaylous difference betwene the reason ║ and the affecc[y]on / but for what purpose shuld it serue ║ me to brynge forth reasōs and [t]o argue agaynst them ║ that for them and in theyr fauoure hathe approued & ║ made the lawes and all the ordynaunces. what con= ║ [stitucyon may I allege] vnto vnreasonable [p]sons whi ║ che wyll nat receyue reason, & the whiche hath made ║ the statutes vnto their owne aduauntage, contrarye ║ vnto vs theyr mortall enemyes. And therfore nat so ║ as ye ought you wold haue it, but euen so as it semeth ║ best vnto youre pleasure wt thinfamye of your fautes ║ you do vs blame & sclaūder, and yet more wolde ye do | hauynge none that wolde withsaye you / in asmoche | as we nat beynge of auctoryte to ordayne, nor can nat ║ alege ye lawe accordyng vnto our ryght, nor we haue ║ none that in our fauer wyll wryte, but you that haue ║ the penne in the hande as it pleaseth you so do you dis= ║ pose and wryte. wherfore who that suffereth nat, ║ beynge of power to do any other thing than to suffre, ║ is more rather strengthed than vaynquesshed / and it ║ foloweth nat for all that that in the malyce of youre

B. Reading Edition of the Emmanuel College Fragment

[F2r] lenger place to my reasons, seyng that even so as ye complayne of us, ye also complayne of your owne honours, gyvyng occasyon that your fawtes may be manyfest to all the worlde, whiche as yet are unknowen to moche people. This sayd by Affranio, Hortensia in this wyse as foloweth dyde begyn.

I perceyve you, Affranio, so very cruell and unto us so coniured an hole enmy that, yf ye were assured that trouth shold be dryven out of the worlde and faythe loste and dystroyed and the chyrches defoyled, moche sooner wolde ye consent to the ruyne of heven and erthe than ye wolde absteyne your odyous purpose of saying evyll by women. Yet by as moche as though your subtyl speche doth surmount me in dysputacion, your evydent coleryke envy is sufficient to abate the weyght of your wordes and to make them lyght and without credence. And yet if that women durst deny without shame that men are the purchasers in lovyng, I am sure that your secrete conscyence within you reproveth you and maketh you to thynke all the contrary, admonysshing you of the manyfolde gracious requestes that ye can make that, whyther we wyll or not, it behoveth us to yelde as overcome. Wherfore yf in flateryng us thus ye can fynde wordes to deceyve us, it is no wonder yf in dyspreysynge us ye be inventyf by your reasons for to confounde us. But for all that these your audacyous facyons be not gretely to be alowed, in that our ferefull dulnesse and your extreme knowlege doth make a lesyng seme

to be true. And yet though I dyde nothyng but holde my peas, without doubt symplenesse, whiche is subgect to many wronges and outra [F2v] ge, oughte to be worthy of supportacion, for bycause that who that hath leest knowlege and understandyng sholde take councell of them that be more dyscrete and prudent. The whiche we do whan we, ygnourauntly faylyng, beleve the councell of you that ought to be the wysest, in suche wise that ye of all the ygnoraunt errour be unto them the cause, which as dishonest you do disdayne. By this reason unto you of whome all the evyll procedeth double blame ought to be imposed, and natwithstandynge your counsell, yet happeneth it often unto them that insueth it, that before the parfyte agrement, they fele a mervaylous difference betwene the reason and the affeccyon. But for what purpose shuld it serve me to brynge forth reasons and to argue agaynst them that for them and in theyr favoure hathe approved and made the lawes and all the ordynaunces? What constitucyon may I allege unto unreasonable persons whiche wyll nat receyve reason, and the whiche hath made the statutes unto their owne advauntage, contrarye unto us, theyr mortall enemyes? And therfore nat so as ye ought you wold have it, but even so as it semeth best unto youre pleasure, with th’infamye of your fautes, you do us blame and sclaunder, and yet more wolde ye do havynge none that wolde withsaye you, inasmoche as we nat beynge of auctoryte to ordayne nor cannat alege the lawe accordyng unto our ryght, nor we have none that in our faver wyll wryte, but you that have the penne in the hande, as it pleaseth you, so do you dispose and wryte. Wherfore who that suffereth, nat beynge of power to do any other thing than to suffre, is more rather strengthed than vaynquesshed, and it foloweth nat for all that, that in the malyce of youre ...

C. Diplomatic Edition of Le Iugement D’amour

Base text: Le Iugement damour / auquel est racomptee Lhystoire de Ysabel fille du Roy Descoce / translatee de espaignol en Francoys nouuellement. On les vend a Lyon cheulx Oliuier Arnoullet. Lyon: Olivier Arnoullet, 2 December 1532. 8°: A–F 8G4. Copies: Biblioteca Capitular y Colombina, Seville, 15-2-7(7); British Library, 12403.aaaa.3.

Apparatus Criticus

Sigla

• B LE Iugement damour. Auquel est racomptee / lhistoire de Isabel / fille du Roy Descoce / Translatee de Espaignol en Francoys. Nouuellement. ¶Et par la dicte Hystoire vng chascun pourra aprendre et elegantement parler et a orner la langue Francoyse. Ainsi quon pourra veoir par la dicte Hystoire. ¶ggg.p.k.ta.&.p.t.a.d.o.s. e.ς.e.o. [Caen: Successors of Laurent Hostingue, c. 1530.] 8°: [A]–G8. Copies: Bibliothèque Méjanes, Aix-en-Provence, C.6408; British Library, G.10111.
• E LE IVGEMENTDAMOVR, Auquel est racomptee Lhystoire de Ysabel, fille du Roy Descoce, translatee de Espaignol en Francoys. Imprime nouuellement a Paris, pour Hierosme Denis Libraire, demourant en la Rue Sainct Iaques. a Lenseigne de la Croix blanche. CVM PRIVILEGIO. Paris: Jérôme Denis, [after 14 September 1529]. 8°: a–g8h4. Copy: Edinburgh University Library, De.1/1.46.
• F LE IVGEMENT DAMOVR, Auquel est racomptee Lhystoire de Ysabel, fille du roy Descosse, translatee de langaige Espaignol en langue Francoyse. ¶On les vend a Paris Au mont sainct Hylaire, a lhostel Dalbret Par Anthoine bonnemere. Paris: Antoine Bonnèmere, [after September 1530 = 1532–33?]. 8°: A–I8. Issued

  ---

  112

  
  
  
  with Le Messagier Damours, which has separate title page and register (a–b8 c4). Copies: Folger Shakespeare Library, PQ6390.F67 (cage); British Library, G.10112.

Variant readings

                                                                                                                                                           

2	plaignez aussi] plaigniez aussi BF pleigniez aussi E
3	occasion] occasions E
4	incongnues] incongneues BF incogneuz E
4	soyent] soient E
4–5	Hortensia a ce quil sensuit donna commancement] Hortensia a ce quil sensuyt donna commencement BE Hortensia a ce qui sensuyt cy apres donna son commencement F
6	&] et BF
7	des] de E
7	estiez] esties E
8	&] et BF
8	violez] violes E
8	consentiries] consentiriez B consentires F
8	la royne] le ruine B la ruine EF
8	&] et BF
9	que vous] que de vous F
9	odieux] odieulx BF
10	dispute] disputer BE disputes F
10	inimitie] innimitie F
10	&] et F
11	&] et BF
11	&] et BF
13	secrete] secrette F
13	dedens] dedans BEF
13	&] et BF
14	admonnestant] amonnestant B admonestant E
15	scauez] scaues E
15	maulgre] malgre B
15	rester] mourer BF
16	scauez] scaues E
17	mesdisant] medisant E
17	inuentifz] inuentif BEF
18	ceste] cest B
19	crainctiue] creintiue B craincte E
19	pusilanimite] pusillanimite BEF
19	&] et BF
19	extreme] extresme F
20	encores] encore F
20	aultre] autre E
20	feisse] fisse EF
21	&] et BF
21	oultrage] oultraige BEF
22	celuy] celluy BF
22	congnoit & scait] congnoist et scait BF cognoist & scayt E
22–23	discret & prudent] prudent & discret E discret et prudent F
23	quant] quand E
24	doit] doibt BEF
25	cause] causes BEF
25	come] comme BEF
25	desdaignez] desdaignes E
26	doit] doibt BE
26	toutesfoys] toutesfois E
28	&] et F
29	&] et BF
29	eux] eulx BEF
29	&] et BF
30	&] et BF
30	&] et B
30	les] ler F
31	recoiuent] recoyuent E recoipuent F
32	&] et F
32	fait] faict BEF
32	status] statutz BE statuts F
32	aduantaige] aduantage B
33	ennemies] ennemyes B
33	mieux] mieulx BEF
34	voulunte] volunte BEF
34–35	blasmes &] blasmez et BF blasmez & E
35	&] Et B et F
35	contredie] contredye E
36	auctorite] authorite BEF
36	nostre] noustre E
37	aleguer] alleguer BEF
37	escripue] escriue B
38	& escripuez] et escriuez B et escripuez F
39	pouant] sachant F
39	aultre] autre F
39	&] Et B et F
40	sensuit] sensuyt EF
40	la malice] la grande malice B