University of Virginia Library

THE DISCOVERY[1] DURING THE SUMMER OF 1947 of a copy of The First Five Bookes of Ovids Metamorphosis "Imprinted for W:B: 1621" puts an end to many conjectures[2] about this mysterious and elusive littlc book; but not to all, for according to the title-page, it belongs to "edit: 2d." The copy, which was acquired for the Folger Shakespeare Library, may be the very one of which just one hundred and forty years ago Joseph Haslewood supplied to Sir Egerton Brydges the following account:

More than once the failure of scholars to locate this or any other copy of the book—nowhere is the name of the owner of the copy in question stated—has led to speculation about the accuracy of Haslewood's description and even about his honesty.[4] The vindication of the antiquary, who suffered deeply from the scorn of some of his more genteel contemporaries, in this instance may help to validate his other contributions to bibliography.

The Folger copy of The First Five Bookes—which, until another comes to light, I shall call unique—corresponds in almost every detail to that described by Haslewood. The book, which measures 6.4 x 10.2 cm., is actually a duodecimo and not a sexagesimo. When purchased, it possessed only the rear cover and portions of the backstrip of eighteenth-century calf, and its condition was such that after a careful examination

the book was taken apart and then rebound in green niger. On blank leaf ¶6v, written in a childish scrawl as part of a doggerel statement of ownership, is the name of Thomas Hickman. The collation appears to be, ¶6 A-F12 (F12, possibly a blank, wanting). Leaves "¶1/6 were not conjugate, each having been backed with heavy wove paper. For this reason the collation . . . cannot be entirely certain; but the exact correspondence of chain-lines made it appear highly probable that these two leaves had originally been conjugate . . . All other pairs of leaves were normally conjugate except F2/11, F3/10, of which there was every reason to believe that they had originally been conjugate."[5] Contents: ¶1r, engraved title; ¶1v, blank; ¶2r-6r, "OVID DEFENDED"; ¶6v, blank; A1r-F11r, the text; F11v, blank. Pp. [xii] + 141.

It will be noticed immediately that the Folger copy lacks a leaf bearing the head of Ovid engraved in an oval, with verses beneath. Probably this was a frontispiece which was lost at the time the little book lost its front cover.[6] The title-page is exactly as Haslewood described it, and the prefatory defense of Ovid begins, as Haslewood said it did, with a translation from the concluding lines of Book XV of the Metamorphoses. These points have been conjecturally called in question, and it is doing simple justice to Haslewood to affirm his accuracy. The first sentence of "Ovid Defended" is identical in the editions of 1621 and 1626,[7] except that the words "from detraction" have been added in line 3 of the later edition. In the 12mo, the second sentence is as follows:

The reference "a," is identified on ¶6r as "L. 15 in fin." The preface continues: "A prediction already confirmed by many lustres of Ages. Heare we now that accurate Orator, Marcus Annaevs Seneca." The section continues as in 1626 until Erasmus is reached, where the earlier edition provides an ampler testimony. After Stephanus, 1626 inserts Marcus Antonius Tritonius and Bernardus Martinus. There are occasional variations in the wording of the transitional sentences.

Though the book was originally entered in the registers of the Company of Stationers to Matthew Lownes and William Barrett on 27 April 1621,[9] the engraved title-page of the second

edition names only W[illiam B[arrett].[9a] The printer of this edition is unknown, and no guesses as to his identity can be hazarded because the book contains no printer's devices, no ornaments, and no initial letters. From the date of the second edition, it is obvious that the book was popular, for a reprint was called for within twelve months of the date of entry.

The relationship between the second edition of 1621 and the folio of 1626 is very close. In the preliminaries, for example, the edition of 1626 has on the verso of the leaf of dedication an engraving that has for its central feature the head of Ovid in an oval, with verses beneath; this corresponds to the engraving described by Haslewood but now wanting in the Folger copy of the 1621 edition. Each edition has an engraved title-page, but these differ radically. And each edition has a section enentitled, "Ovid Defended."[10] It is in the texts of the translation that the editions most closely resemble each other. These may be minutely collated for page after page without discovery of even a literal difference. From time to time, the compositors of the 1621 edition were forced by the length of a line to use an ampersand or to indicate the omission of "n" or "m" by printing a vowel with a tilde.[11] Occasionally 1626 corrects a typographical error in 1621 [12] or introduces one.[13] Sandys devoted

much attention to smoothing the metre of the lines in the edition of 1626, frequently altering the spelling of a dissyllabic word to insure that it should be pronounced as a monosyllable and eliding e's and o's before vowels or the letter h.[14] Otherwise, except for verbal changes or alterations in the translation, which will be discussed together in another connection, the text of the first five books of the 1626 edition agrees to a remarkable degree with that of the edition of 1621. Only in the reprinting of Bibles, I think, will such literal correspondence be found in other seventeenth-century books.

If this be true, it follows that a corrected copy of the second edition of 1621 must have been supplied to the printer in 1626 for the use of his compositors,[14a] and the accuracy of the reprint suggests that Sandys read the proofs zealously. Now if a copy of the second edition of 1621 was used as printer's copy in 1626, it is a safe presumption not only that this second edition was an exceptionally faithful reprint of the first edition of 1621 but that the latter was printed from a manuscript supplied by Sandys himself. It would follow that Sandys planned the book and its engravings in conjunction with his publishers, William Barrett and Matthew Lownes.[15]

While Sandys was in Virginia, William Barrett died, and on 3 April 1626, his relict, Mistress Barrett, conveyed to John Parker her rights in a number of books, including Sandys's Ovid.[16] Then, a little more than one month later, William

Stansby entered "A booke Called Ovids Metamorphosis XV bookes, in English verse by George Sandes."[17] Although the imprint on the engraved title-page names neither printer nor publisher and the colophon reads, "Printed by William Stansby 1626," it may be presumed that Stansby served as publisher of this edition, for in 1626 Sandys expected to return shortly to Virginia. He probably assumed that his rights in the book were fully protected by the pregnant words, "Cum Priuilegio," engraved on the title-page. This phrase alludes to letters patent granted by King Charles to Sandys on 24 April 1626[18] that gave him exclusive publishing rights for twenty-one years.[19] These rights he had to assert within two years, for Robert Young published an octavo reprint of the complete translation early in 1628.

The details of the transaction by which Young became possessed of rights in the book are obscure. Matthew Lownes was dead before 10 April 1627, for on that date many of his titles were transferred to his son Thomas,[20] but not the Ovid. Soon after, Thomas Lownes conveyed a large group of books to Humphrey Lownes and Robert Young,[21] but again the Ovid is not named. Yet the minutes of Court Book C, are explicit in their statement that "the assignmt to Robt Younge . . . shalbe . . . Crost out of the Regester Booke of the Company." It must be assumed that in a private and unrecorded transaction[22] Matthew Lownes had before his death transferred to Young his interest in The First Five Bookes, as recorded long before on 27 April 1621, and that Young had, somewhat

unethically perhaps, taken advantage of this right in five books to reprint the complete translation of fifteen books.

The wording of the minute in the Court Book suggests that, though he had provided Stansby with a copy of the 1621 edition to print from in 1626, Sandys considered his Fifteen Books an independent publication and that he gave no compensation to John Parker, who had acquired William Barrett's rights in The First Five Bookes, or to Matthew Lownes, who had transferred his rights in the duodecimo to Robert Young.[23] It is my belief, as stated above, that William Stansby, printer of the folio of 1626, probably served only as Sandys's agent. But the outraged poet took no chances when he made his demands upon the Company of Stationers: the minute records that

And so it was done, but the transfer of Mistress Barrett's rights to Parker was somehow overlooked.

Between the years 1621 and 1626 Sandys made a number of revisions of his translation of the first five books of the Metamorphoses. Some of these appear to have been introduced for the purpose of improving the accuracy of the translation. Thus the reading of 1621 (p. 9, line 24), "Or must th' Earth be by saluages possest?" is changed in 1626 to "Must Earth be onely by wild beasts possest?" (Met. 1. 249, ferisne paret populandas tradere

terras). Again, "trembling" (1621, p. 80, line 28) is corrected to "wrathfull" (cf. Met. III. 577, ira tremendos), and "Epogus" (1621, p. 82, line 13) to "Epopeus" (cf. Met. III. 619).

More frequently Sandys amended his translation to improve the Latin pronunciation of proper names. In 1621 (p. 23, line 31), Pleias is trisyllabic, with the accent on the second syllable:

in 1626 both syllabification and accent are changed: (Met. 1. 670, Pleias enixa est letoque det imperat Argum). In one case at least, Sandys corrected the pronunciation of one name at the expense of another. In 1621 (p. 36, line 13), he was not satisfied with his rendition of "Citheron": so he revised it to (cf. Met. 11. 223, Dindymaque et Mycale natusque ad sacra Cithaeron), thus doing violence to the pronunciation of "Mycale."

Some of the revisions entail the rewriting of a complete line or even a couplet. The ravishment of Io, (1. 599-600) is rendered thus in 1621 (p. 21, lines 21-22):

In 1626, the couplet is changed to read: The account of Phaeton's conversation with Apollo (Met. 11. 33-34) appears in 1621 (P. 29, lines 27-28) as follows: In 1626, the passage is altered thus: Once Sandys rewrites a passage (Met. 111. 185-88) to secure greater precision and compression. In 1621 (p. 66, line 31— p. 67, line 3), five lines are required: Three lines suffice in 1626: The later version profits by the removal of the couplet that elaborates the reference in the preceding line to "rosie Morn," and in this revision Elizabethan exuberance can be seen yielding to classical correctness. Other examples might be cited of Sandys's efforts to polish his lines, but these indicate the care he expended on the translation.

Now that the finding of a copy of the second edition of The First Five Bookes of Ovids Metamorphosis has cleared Joseph Haslewood of charges of inaccuracy (or worse) and thrown new light on the history of Sandys's famous translation, it remains to inquire once again whether this book in the edition of 1626 may be considered the first published verse in the English language which was written on the mainland of North America.[25] The answer must be given in the negative. Another "American" poem preceded it by fully three years. In Catalogue

77, A Selection of Extremely Rare and Important Printed Books and Ancient Manuscripts issued early in 1948 by the London firm of William H. Robinson Ltd., item 98 is a broadside ballad entitled, "Good Newes from Virginia . . ."[26] This was published without date in London "for John Trundle," but the title informs us that the poem was "Sent from Iames his Towne this present moneth of March, 1623 by a Gentleman in that Country." Since the ballad gives a highly circumstantial account of the Indian massacre of 1622, the date is probably accurate and the attribution of authorship correct. The author may have been "a Gentleman," but surely his literary attainments were of the slightest, if the ballad is a fair measure. The first stanza is typical: There is no need to detail the evidence of the author's first-hand knowledge of events. The ballad may be read in the facsimile provided in the bookseller's catalogue. It has, moreover, been available to scholars and historians in another form for eight years, having been reproduced as Number 105 in "Photostat Americana, Second Series," in May 1940 from the copy in the Public Record Office in London.[27]

Appropriately enough, this rare ballad, generally overlooked

by literary historians, includes a fine tribute to George Sandys: