The Suppression
Ralegh's biographers have been deeply concerned with the
suppression of the History. Until 1894, when Arber printed
Abbot's order, the most authoritative evidence for suppression was provided
in a letter of John Chamberlain dated January 5, 1615: "Sir Walter Raleighs
booke is called in by the Kinges commaundment, for divers exceptions, but
specially for beeing too sawcie in censuring princes. I heare he takes yt
much to hart, for he thought he had won his spurres and pleased the king
extraordinarilie."[5] Even though
Chamberlain's report was generally accepted before Brushfield and William
Stebbing both questioned its reliability, several questions seemed to require
explanation. Why was the Stansby 1614 published anonymously? If
suppression took place, why were so many copies of this edition
extant?
Before he knew of the suppression order, Brushfield took these two
facts (anonymous publication and the existence of numerous copies) and in
1887 offered a conjecture:
Had the work been really suppressed, few copies of the original
edition of 1614 ought now to be met with. As a matter of fact, it appears
to be fully as common as any of the later ones. The British Museum
Library possesses two copies, and there are two in my own collection.
Suppression is inconsistent with — 1st, there being two distinct
issues of
the early edition, one with a list of errata on the last
leaf facing the index, the other without any, but
having the errata
corrected in the text [emphasis added];
[6] and, 2nd, the publication of
another
edition three years later.
A careful consideration of these facts will, I think, warrant our
drawing the conclusion, that although the work was "called in" by royal
command, such a command must have been soon rescinded. We may,
however, advance a step beyond this. There appears to be something more
than probability in the conjecture that all hindrances to the sale of the work
were removed on the understanding that it should be published without the
name of the author — anonymously — and this was effected
in a very
simple manner by omitting the title-page, and all copies of the original
edition that have been preserved are destitute of one. (Trans. Devon.
Assoc., XIX, 406)
Stebbing, however, was unpersuaded. In 1891 he answered: "The surmise
is ingenious; but it is very hard to believe that such an arrangement, if
made, would have excited no discussion. Chamberlain's language,
moreover, implies that the book was already in circulation. It would be
exceedingly strange if its previous purchasers had the docility to eliminate
the title-page from their copies, in deference to an order certainly not very
emphatically promulgated." Stebbing concluded by impugning
Chamberlain's reliability. "The readiest explanation is that Chamberlain, in
his haste to give his correspondent early information, reported to him a
rumour, and perhaps a threat, upon which James happily had not the
hardihood to act."[7]
When Abbot's order was printed, thus vindicating Chamberlain,
Brushfield in 1894 interpreted the order as confirmation of his original
conjecture. "In a paper of mine . . . read in 1887 . . . , I expressed the
opinion that as Ralegh's work was certainly not suppressed, some kind of
compromise was probably arranged with the publisher, and this was
effected by removing the title-page, and thus virtually converting it into an
anonymous one. This view appears to be corroborated by the document
which Prof. Arber has brought to light. Is it capable of any other
explanation?" (N. & Q., 8th S., V, 442).
In
1904, however, perhaps realizing that his original conjecture was scarcely
supportable, he withdrew it, thus reopening the question of anonymous
publication and suppression.
In my former paper I suggested that, in lieu of suppression, a
compromise was probably agreed upon, by the elimination of the printed
title-page, so as to render the work anonymous; and
its absence in
the
first two editions seemed to bear this out [emphasis added].
[8] Stebbing points out the difficulties
attending the enforcement of a royal order for the book to be called in, as
it had been for some time in circulation; but the discovery of the
de
facto order rather adds to than diminishes the difficulty of assigning
any reason for the absent title-page. (
Trans. Devon. Assoc.,
XXXVI, 185)
In spite of Brushfield's 1904 withdrawal (admittedly less than candid),
the damage had been done. In 1918 Firth took up Brushfield's 1887
conjecture and transformed it into fact, and embellished the fact. He wrote:
in spite of these objections to the History, the
suppression
was merely temporary. The government contented itself with the removal
of the title-page, which contained the author's portrait as well as his name,
and no alterations or omissions in the text were ordered.
This excision is not difficult to explain. Raleigh was a state prisoner
condemned to death for high treason, owing his life to the King's mercy;
respited, not pardoned. He was a man 'civilly dead,' as it was alleged. Yet
he had the impudence to show that he was very much alive, not only by
writing a great book, which might have been winked at, but by putting his
name and even his portrait on the title-page. (Essays, p.
55)
Ralegh's more recent biographers (and others such as F. A. Mumby
in his Publishing and Bookselling, rev. ed. [1954], p. 97)
have
accepted the story without question. It was repeated by Milton Waldman
(Sir Walter Raleigh [1928], p. 193), D. B. Chidsey
(Sir
Walter Ralegh: That Damned Upstart [1931], p. 258),
Edward Thompson (Sir Walter Ralegh: Last of the
Elizabethans [1936], p. 259), Willard Wallace (Sir Walter
Ralegh [1959], p. 250), and most recently by Margaret Irwin
(That Great Lucifer [1960], p. 236). Thus a bibliographical
conjecture has become an historical fact. And the "fact" in turn proved
Ralegh's "impudence" and purportedly helped to explain James's
wrath.
What then can be said about anonymous publication and suppression?
If Camden's word for March as the month of publication is correct, the
History was on sale for nine months before the suppression
order; yet if the copies sold in this period possessed the printed title-page,
why have none survived? Copies of this edition are plentiful; yet not one
has been found containing a printed title-page.[9] Furthermore, the simple
bibliographical
fact is that there is no evidence that the printed title-page was cancelled.
The preliminaries of the Stansby 1614 consist of two unsigned conjugate
leaves. The first leaf contains Ben Jonson's "The Minde of the Front,"
verses which interpret the allegory of the engraved title-page. The second
leaf bears the engraved title-page, which has the title "THE HISTORY OF
THE WORLD" lettered across the center and the imprint at the bottom "At
London Printed for Walter Bvrre. / 1614." In the preliminaries of all
subsequent editions up to 1652, the printed title-page follows the engraved
one. This order seems to have been the usual one for those books which
possess both. In the "Jaggard 1617" the preliminaries consist of a gathering
of two folds. The inner fold contains "The Minde of the Front" and the
engraved title-page; the outer fold contains the printed title-page on the
recto of the fourth leaf. In the Stansby 1617, a reprint of the 1614 and the
first actually to possess a printed
title-page, the title-page is a single leaf inserted after the engraving (in the
Folger copy the conjugate blank leaf which would complete the outer fold
may have been lost). In any case the important point is that the makeup of
all subsequent editions to 1652 indicates that had the bound Stansby 1614
contained a printed title-page it would have followed the engraved one; thus
evidence of cancel would be present in extant copies. No such evidence
appears. It must be assumed that the
History appeared in
1614
without a printed title-page.
The causes of James's anger and the suppression are not difficult to
surmise. Ralegh lived only through the "mercy" of James. In this precarious
position to pass fierce judgments on the crimes of monarchs,[10] to paint Henry VIII as the pattern
of a
"merciless Prince" (II, xvi-vii), to provide examples of the overthrow of
tyrannies (VI, 50-75, 130-136), to speak of monarchy in terms suggestive
of constitutional limitations (II, 339-352), and to lament for the monarch's
ungrateful treatment of England's patriot soldiers, carefully excepting
James, but the inference was plain (VII, 789-790), all this quite
understandably irritated the inflexible champion of divine right. The attitude
of James was certain to influence the practice of historians. Camden, with
all his devotion to historical truth, stated in the preface to The
History
. . . of Princesse Elizabeth: "THE HIDDEN MEANINGS OF
PRINCES . . . and if they worke any thing more secretly, to
search them out, it is vnlawfull; it is doubtful & dangerous; pursue not
therefore the search thereof."[11]
Ralegh, qua historian, took a bolder view. Whether the
historian's subject matter was ancient or modern made no difference in
terms of its moral, political, or practical relevance. All past events were
seen within
an immutable framework created by an immutable God, whose judgments
determined history. Thus any example, no matter how ancient, had its
contemporary meaning if one knew how to search for it. Since this view of
history was a commonplace shared by Ralegh's contemporaries (who had
not learned to judge "historically" in a universe of change or becoming),
they could, as well as James, note Ralegh's judgments on the deeds of
monarchs and draw their own conclusions or parallels; and drawing such
parallels was dangerous. James had noted Ralegh's treatment of kings. In
a letter to Sir Robert Carr, James alluded to "Sir Walter Ralegh's
description of the kings that he hates, of whom he speaketh but evil."
[12]
It is improbable that James "compromised" with a man he feared and
rescinded his suppression order with the stipulation that the printed
title-page be removed. Such a weak measure would not have changed the
possible influence of Ralegh's remarks on monarchs, nor would it have
rendered the work truly anonymous. Scarcely a chapter of the
History is without a Raleghian observation on his own
experience: his relations with Prince Henry, his defense of the daring
landing at Fayal, his answer to charges of Puritanism, his praise of
exploratory voyages. From internal evidence alone few authors could have
been easier to identify by a Londoner. Also, what would have prevented a
bookseller from revealing the identity of the author, then the most famous
inmate of the Tower, in order to stimulate sales?
We may conclude that the suppression order most likely remained in
force until Ralegh's conditional release from the Tower in 1616.
