University of Virginia Library

Lydgate's Serpent of Division, 1559, Edited by John Stow
by
William Ringler

In Studies in Bibliography, VIII (1956), 215-217, I suggested that the phrases "newly collected by I. S." in the 1568 Workes of maister Skelton, and "published by I. S." in the 1597 Certaine Worthye Manuscript Poems, indicated the editorship of the antiquary John Stow. Professor Franklin B. Williams, Jr., thereupon suggested to me privately that STC 17028 might also have been edited by Stow. This is titled, "The serpent of diuision. Whych hathe euer bene yet the chefest vndoer of any Region or Citie, set forth after the Auctours old copy by I. S. Anno .M.D.L.IX. the .iiii. of May", concludes, "Thus endeth this litle treatise entituled: the Serpent of diuision, made by Iohn Lydgate", and has as colophon, "Imprinted at London by Owen Rogers dwelling in Smithfielde by the Hospital in litle S. Bartelmewes".

The Serpent of Division, composed in 1422, is Lydgate's only known prose work, being attributed to him by name in the Calthorpe MS and the Rogers print. It was edited in 1911 for the Oxford University Press by H. N. MacCracken from the Fitzwilliam MS, with citation of a few selected variants, too scanty to be of use in determining textual relationships, from the Calthorpe, Pepys and Harvard MSS and the Treverys and Rogers prints. A fifth MS, formerly Ashburnham Appendix 128 and now British Museum Additional 38179, which MacCracken mentioned (p. 45) but had not seen, is an early eighteenth-century transcript of the Pepys MS.

The fragment of the last four leaves of the earlier Treverys edition, not listed in the STC but reprinted in full by Joseph Haslewood in Censura Literaria, IX (1809), 369-373, has the colophon, "Thus endeth this lyttle treatyse entytuled the Damage and destruccyon in Realmes. Newly and of late Enprynted by Peter Treuerys. Dwellynge at London in Southwarke, at the sygne of the Wodowes". Treverys printed from 1521 to 1535. So far as can be determined from MacCracken's apparatus, Treverys appears to have followed a MS similar to the Fitzwilliam; though either Treverys or his source slightly rephrased and modernised Lydgate's text. Thus where MacCracken (p. 64 line 20) indicates that the four substantive MSS read "Another prodigie", Treverys reads "An other maruelous sygne or prodygy"; the MSS (line 24) "toforne", Treverys "before"; and the MSS (line 31) "smete", Treverys "smyten".

MacCracken (p. 47) suggested that the 1559 Rogers edition "seems to derive from the Treverys print, with possible reference to earlier MSS. The title, Serpent of Division, is probably derived from the title of Treverys

which is lost." That the Treverys edition was used as copy by Rogers is proved by their identity of wording and their agreement in error against the MSS. For example the MSS (p. 64 line 26) read "Vincent in his historiall meroure", where Treverys has "Vnycent in his hystoryall boke" and Rogers, "Vnicent in hys hystoriall bookes". But I find no evidence to support MacCracken's suggestion that Rogers's editor, I. S., made textual changes by referring to earlier MSS. Complete collation of Haslewood's reprint of the Treverys fragment with Rogers reveals only 14 verbal variants, all errors, changes, or obvious corrections of a kind commonly made independently by early printers. For example, Rogers reads "a feminiue" for Treverys's "femynyne", "vnclose" for "enclose", and "Pompey" for "Pomney".

A third sixteenth-century edition, STC 17029, has the title-page:

The text of this edition has been extensively rephrased and modernised. MacCracken (p. 47) said that "Allde followed Rogers, in setting forth his copy", though he did not cite any readings to substantiate his statement; but he was mistaken, for collation reveals clearly that Allde followed the earlier edition of Treverys. For example, in a verse quotation Treverys reads, "Whan many a regyon he had brought full low", which was too long for the larger font of type used by Rogers, who in order to avoid running over the line omitted a word and printed "when many a region he had broght lov"; but Allde printed the earlier reading of Treverys, "When many a Region he had brought full lowe". Since Allde took his text from Treverys, he probably also reproduced his title-page, which substantiates MacCracken's suggestion that the lost Treverys title-page was headed, "The Serpent of Deuision", even though his colophon described the work as "the Damage and destrucyon in Realmes".

It is significant that neither Treverys nor Allde name the author of the treatise. Only Rogers's edition, "set forth after the Auctours old copy by

I. S.", contains the information that it was "made by Iohn Lydgate". Actually I. S. did not use "the Auctours old copy" for his text, but merely reproduced the Treverys print; so that his only editorial contribution was the addition of the name of the author. John Stow had a life-long interest in the works of Lydgate. He owned or made copies of many Lydgate manuscripts, appended Lydgate's Siege of Thebes to his 1561 edition of Chaucer, and contributed an extensive bibliography of Lydgate's writings, in which "The serpent of diuision" is listed, to Speght's 1598 edition of Chaucer (sig. Zzz6v).