 | Studies in bibliography |  |
II
Let us now turn to McKerrow's great edition of the works of Thomas
Nashe, published 1904-1910 in five volumes, thus in the same period that he
worked on his editions for Bang's series.[13]
In the first of his letters in the Louvain University archive (dating from
February 25, 1903), McKerrow refers to his effort on the edition of Nashe,
"which is a somewhat lengthy piece of work". In the following letters there
is more than once a complaint about the slow progress of the work. May 8,
1903: "It [i.e. "my edition of Nashe"] is not getting on quite so fast as I
could wish but I hope that the first two volumes (of four) will appear in
the early autumn". January 18, 1904: "No, unfortunately Nashe is by no
means finished yet, it is proving a much longer job than I expected. Vol I
is out, & half vol II passed for press, that's all". And more than a year later
there were problems with the printers: "Unfortunately Nashe 3 is not yet
finished. It was half done in November but since that the printers ceased
to work at it (for reasons that can be guessed) [and canceled] or at least only
went on very slowly, a sheet a month or so, with great delay in getting the
revises" (April 13, 1905). The printers have gone on now, but there arises a
new difficulty about an indecent poem in the last sheet of the volume. I
will turn to it in a moment.
R. B. McKerrow is generally known for having invented the term "copytext",
although according to W. W. Greg in his famous article of 1950, "he
was merely giving a name to a conception already familiar".[14]
As a rule,
always bracketed together, but that does not mean that there are no differences
of opinion between these scholars. Thus, in connection with McKerrow's
edition of Nashe's The Unfortunate Traveller, published in the second
volume of Nashe's works, Greg rather disapprovingly cites McKerrow's
words: "if an editor has reason to suppose that a certain text embodies later
corrections than any other, and at the same time has no ground for disbelieving
that these corrections, or some of them at least, are the work of
the author, he has no choice but to make that text the basis of his reprint".
As a consequence, McKerrow followed the second edition, "Newly corrected
and augmented". In this respect Greg speaks about the principle of "maintaining
the integrity of the copy-text" and about "the old fallacy of the `best
text' " and claims that as a consequence for McKerrow an editor has to
accept all substantive readings and all accidentals of the copy-text, also in
the case where the copy-text is based on a version revised by the author.[15]
To do full justice to McKerrow, it is not superfluous to examine once
more the principles underlying his Nashe edition. The same prudence and
reflection on which text to edit and particularly how to edit it that McKerrow
displays in his editions we have discussed so far will also become
visible here.
Right at the beginning of his work, in the general note on the treatment
of the text, he introduces the term copy-text, which he defines as "the text
used in each particular case as the basis of mine", and which he follows
"exactly except as regards evident misprints": these are corrected, "the
reading of the original being given at the foot of the page". Misprints in
word division on the other hand are corrected without a note (1:xi). As to
punctuation, McKerrow has chosen a compromise, namely "to keep the old
punctuation wherever it is neither misleading nor actually disturbing to a
reader, but to alter it without scruple where it is so". He humbly admits
that his system is inconsistent (1:xiii). It is obvious that McKerrow does not
follow the copy-text slavishly; judgment has to play a role, even in the case
of the accidentals (e.g. punctuation).
The first volume (1904) of his Nashe edition includes the text of A
Countercuffe giuen to Martin Iunior: by the venturous, hardie, and renowned
Pasquill of England, Caualiero of 1589 (1:51-64). Two old editions
of the text are known, though scarcely differentiated from one another.
McKerrow believes they are set in duplicate. One edition has the printer's
device on the title page and the other not; McKerrow concludes that "the
one with the printer's mark is in a sense the original, the other a duplicate".
The editor therefore follows the former (from the copy in the British Museum),
though in this case the choice between the two is of minor importance
(1:52-55).
The same holds for The Returne of the renowned Caualiero Pasquill of
England (1:65-103). There is one old edition (1589), of which several copies
are left. McKerrow examined seven of them. On the basis of the variants,
he distinguishes three groups. The variations in the different copies are,
according to him, due "to certain pages being for some reason or other set
up twice". The editor follows the a-copy (British Museum), "representing
the text of the majority of the copies" he has seen (1:66-68). In other words,
in the case where there is only one old edition left (or two editions, set in
duplicate) with several copies, there is no big problem as to the choice of
the copy-text. The editor examines whether there are differences, and he
uses them to define and motivate the choice of the copy he bases his edition
on.
More complicated, and more interesting too, is the situation where there
are several editions from different years. This is the case with Pierce Penilesse
his Supplication to the Diuell (1:137-245). There are three editions of
1592 (A, B, C), one of 1593, and one of 1595. On the basis of some arguments,
McKerrow is able to settle the order of A, B, and C (through examples like:
frantick in A; fran-tick (divided at the end of a line) in B, and fran-tick in C
and 1593) (1:142). In his chapter on the choice of the copy-text, McKerrow
makes it plausible that C was the last edition corrected by the author, though
Nashe probably did not see the texts of B and C in proof: "I imagine that
in both cases the printer was supplied with a corrected copy of the preceding
edition to work from". At the same time he thinks that the texts of 1593 and
1595 were not corrected by the author. So, "C was the last text corrected by
the author. At the same time C is often inferior to A, being much less carefully
printed". McKerrow was then faced with two alternatives: either to
print from A, adopting the corrections of C, or to print from C, with corrections
from A (1:147). On page 143 McKerrow had already stated his
"general principle of making the last edition which seems to have been corrected
by the author the foundation of the text", and so as a consequence he
decides in favour of the C-text (from the British Museum) as copy-text,
"correcting where necessary from A". Moreover, he frankly testifies he has
used "somewhat more freedom in restoring to the text from earlier editions
words which seem to have been merely accidentally omitted in C, than
would have been justifiable if we had had reason to think that the author
himself had read the proofs" (1:147-148). The least we can say is that this
statement proves McKerrow's cautiousness and his differentiated approach
towards the copy-text.
The second volume of McKerrow's edition of Nashe (also 1904) includes
three works, beginning with Christs Teares over Ierusalem (2:1-186). Christs
Teares exists in an edition of 1593, one of 1594, and one of 1613. The 1594
edition is from the same setting-up of type as 1593, but there are differences
in the preliminary matter. The original Epistle to the Reader was canceled
and a new one substituted, for example. McKerrow follows the edition of
1593 (copy in the British Museum). The preliminary matter of 1594 is based
on the copy in the Bodleian Library, and is placed at the end of the work
here, as it is clear that the new preliminary matter of 1594 ("To the reader")
is certainly from Nashe's hand.
Another work published in the second volume is the already mentioned
The Unfortunate Traveller (2:187-328), of which there are two editions of
1594, A and B, the latter one "Newly corrected and augmented". McKerrow
gives some arguments to prove that the second edition was the work of
two printers (whom he calls X and Y), each of them responsible for a number
of sheets (2:189-191). It would lead us too far astray to go into the different
arguments for this thesis (e.g. difference in the workmanship, variation
in the number of lines, etc.). As to the relation between the editions, there
are arguments to say that B was printed from a copy of A (e.g., the last two
sheets of B correspond page for page with the last two of A). The question
is then whether and to what extent "the differences between the two editions
can be set down to deliberate correction on the part of the author" (2:194).
McKerrow argues "that a large number of the changes are certainly intentional
alterations which can only have been made with the object of improving
the style" (2:194). But there are other changes, "due to an entirely
different cause". Indeed, on page K4r "we find a number of changes all tending
to shorten the text" to such an extent that in one instance it becomes
almost unintelligible (2:195). This must have to do with the division of the
copy between the two printers. Sheet L being already set by printer X, printer
Y, seeing that he still had two and a half pages of copy to get into two pages
of sheet K, "he himself, perhaps with the consent of the author, made the
alterations in question" (2:195). In other words, McKerrow gives us here a
marvelous example of so-called "textual bibliography", of how printing
techniques can influence the wording of the text.
There are some other changes for which the editor can see no reason,
and he concludes that the second edition is evidently corrected, though not
always improved: "Whether the changes were the work of Nashe himself it
is, I think, not possible to say. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, it
seems natural to suppose that they were" (2:196). And then follows the
famous paragraph, also quoted by Greg, in which McKerrow states that the
editor has to take as copy-text the text in which there are (some) corrections
by the author, in this case the second edition. But to do justice to McKerrow,
it must be remarked that he does not stick to his copy-text in all cases, and
Greg is somewhat misleadingly referring to the fallacy of the `best text' and
the duty always to follow the copy-text in the matter of accidentals. Indeed,
McKerrow clearly states that his edition is "from the copy of edition B in
the Bodleian Library, with collations from the copy of A at the British
Museum. As stated below, I am very doubtful whether all the differences
between the two editions are due to the author, and in a considerable number
of cases have felt bound to recur to the readings of the first edition"
(1:189). Could it be any clearer?
The last text edited in the second volume of Nashe's works in The Tragedie
of Dido Queene of Carthage, "Written by Christopher Marlowe, and
of letters to Bang, McKerrow goes into the question of the relationship between
Marlowe and Nashe, and more specifically into the inclusion of Dido
in his edition of Nashe's works. In a letter dated June 11, 1903, an answer
to a letter in which Bang expressed his doubts about Marlowe's authorship
of the prologue of his Faustus, McKerrow likewise doubts the possible authorship
of Nashe; he wonders "whether there is enough evidence". Indeed,
"there is not enough left of Nashe's verse to enable us to judge by the evidence
of style, and what there is is so extraordinarily various". In this context
he makes a reference to Dido: "It is difficult to believe that any of Dido
can have been written by a person capable of such very poor verse as most
of Summers Last Will and Testament", a statement suggesting McKerrow's
conviction about Nashe's authorship of Dido. Nevertheless, a fortnight later,
in a letter to Bang of June 27, McKerrow is in doubt whether or not he will
include Dido in his edition. He refers to A. H. Bullen (the publisher of
McKerrow's Nashe edition) who "is about to issue a new edition of his
`Marlowe' which will of course contain the play. He was therefore of the
opinion that it would be as well for me to omit it". But McKerrow prefers
to include it "so as to have the edition as complete as possible". Moreover,
it is "very largely a question of [whether canceled] how the space will work
out".[16] Further on, McKerrow expresses his hope not to interfere with an
edition of Dido that Bang is "about to publish" as that one will "follow the
original page for page", which his edition cannot, and "will probably be
more elaborately annotated". As far as I know, Bang did not publish an
edition of Dido.
There is only one early edition left of this work, dating from 1594. In
it, the play is divided into five acts and there are no divisions of scenes. Yet,
most of the modern editors have divided the play into scenes, and McKerrow
will act the same way, "though, for the purpose of numbering" he treats
the acts as undivided (2:333-335). It may appear strange that the editor
deviates from his copy-text as to the division into scenes, as it is likewise
remarkable that his edition is "from the copy in the Bodleian Library, with
collations from Dyce, Cunningham, Mr. Bullen, and Grosart" (2:331), i.e.
collations from modern editions.
The third volume of the Nashe edition begins with three pieces of
which there are in each case two or three copies in the British Museum. Of
Have with You to Saffron-Walden (3:1-139), the British Museum owns two
copies of the 1596 edition, with occasional differences of reading between
them, "evidently owing to correction at press". McKerrow edits following
one of these copies, and in the case of differences, "the reading which appears
to be correct is given in the text, that of the other copy being recorded in a
foot-note" (3:2). Of Nashes Lenten Stuffe (3:141-226) two copies of the 1599
edition is again based on one of them, with some variants of the
other copy (3:142). The third text in this third volume, Summers Last Will
and Testament (3:227-295), exists in three copies at the British Museum.
Again, as we would expect, McKerrow follows one copy, and the other
copies "have also been occasionally consulted" (3:228). It is striking that
for the three texts mentioned, as was already the case with Dido, McKerrow
gives readings from modern, mainly nineteenth-century editions as well (e.g.
from The Complete Works of Thomas Nashe edited by A. B. Grosart in
1883-85).[17] This procedure is in keeping with McKerrow's statement in the
general note introducing his edition: "Unless the contrary is stated in the
introductory note, variant readings of modern reprints, such as those of
Collier and Grosart, are only given when the divergence from the quartos
seems to be intentional, i.e. when the editors appear to have intended an
emendation" (1:xiv).
Also in the third volume are some "shorter pieces". As to the "Preface
to R. Greene's `Menaphon' " (3:300-325), it is interesting to see why McKerrow
takes the 1610 edition as the basis of his own, even though there is an
edition from Nashe's lifetime, i.e. of 1589. In the 1610 text, McKerrow
notices changes and insertions which according to him must "be considered
as deliberate corrections, and, in the absence of evidence to the contrary,
must be attributed to the author of the work". Another argument in favour
of the 1610 version is that there are already two modern reprints of the
edition of 1589 (3:309-310).
At the end of the volume are some "doubtful works" of which "The
choice of Valentines" (3:397-416) is one. No early editions of this poem are
extant, there are only three manuscripts left (B, D and P). McKerrow bases
his edition on manuscript P, "apparently written not long before the end
of the seventeenth century". He inserts a few readings from B and gives the
collation of B and D in footnotes (3:399-400). He prefers this method to
the construction of an eclectic text (3:402).
According to a letter McKerrow wrote to Bang on April 13, 1905, it was
by no means sure that this poem would appear in the volume. Indeed, after
the delay in the printing of the sheets of the volume, caused by the inertia
of the printers, "a new difficulty has just arisen" about "an indecent poem
in the last sheet of the vol. which they don't quite like to print & which will
have to go before the delegates of the press for their approval"—a matter
which, according to McKerrow, "will probably cause further delay"; he
himself would not be "particularly sorry to be obliged to omit it". Anyway,
the "indecent" poem is included in the edition. The theme of the poem
Dildo" (3:403)!
The fourth volume of The Works of Thomas Nashe consists of the explanatory
notes, while the fifth volume gives the introduction and the index.
In conclusion, it is clear that McKerrow's pre-1914 editions testify of
his extreme cautiousness in the choice of the copy-text on which he bases his
editions. According to the principles underlying the editions in Bang's
Materialien series, he follows the base text page for page. Variants between
copies are rendered in the textual notes. Misprints are corrected in the
explanatory notes. In his Nashe edition, misprints are corrected in the text,
the reading of the original is given in footnote. In the cases where other old
editions of the work exist, McKerrow allows corrections from those editions
into the copy-text, though always with the necessary justification.
McKerrow's editorial labours in these years also produced another important
fruit. On July 6, 1914, he sent to Bang a booklet, "a little sermon
on the importance of bibliography to editors of Eliz. lit" (cf. Appendix).
McKerrow was extremely well prepared to compose these Notes on Bibliographical
Evidence for Literary Students . . ., in which he could lean on evidence
and examples gathered while working on his editions.[18]
The booklet
in turn was the predecessor of his famous manual An Introduction to
Bibliography for Literary Students (Oxford, 1927) that for decades to come
has acted as the bible of analytical and textual bibliography. The fact that
the edition of 1927 (reprinted with "a few corrections and small additions"
in 1928) remains in print testifies to its quality.[19]
Although knowledge of
the history of printing as well as bibliographical study have evolved since
McKerrow's day, this additional product of the early years of the twentieth
century is a further reminder of his continuing impact on scholarship of the
twenty-first.
The Works of Thomas Nashe. Edited from the original texts by Ronald B. McKerrow,
5 vols. London, 1904-1910.
W. W. Greg, "The Rationale of Copy-Text", Studies in Bibliography 3 (1950-1951):
19-36 (p. 19). In his memorial tribute to McKerrow, Greg states: "He also saw that the
rock-bed of editing was the choice of the text to be taken as the basis of a reprint. For this
he invented the term `copy-text', which has passed into critical use" (W. W. Greg, "Ronald
Brunlees McKerrow, 1872-1940", Proceedings of the British Academy 26 [1940]: 488-515
[p. 504]).
In his edition, McKerrow refers to a note by Malone quoting the words of "Bishop
Tanner" about The Tragedie of Dido by Christopher Marlowe: "Hanc perfecit & edidit
Tho. Nash Lond. 1594. 4to" (2:336).
Cf. For Have with You: "Grosart's variations from the quarto have been recorded
only when it seemed that they might be intentional" (3:2). For Nashes Lenten Stuffe:
"Grosart's readings have been recorded whenever they seem not to be mere errors of
transcription or misprints" (3:143). And for Summers Last Will: "I have attempted to give
all Grosart's readings and also all those of Mr. Hazlitt with the exception of a few which
seemed to be certainly misprints" (3:229).
| Studies in bibliography | |