| ||
Subsequent to the description of three presentation copies of Biathanatos printed on large, fine paper having a "bunch of grapes" watermark,[1] and the manuscript corrections in John Sparrow's copies of both issues of the first edition of Biathanatos [2] as well as in the St John's College (Oxford)[3] and Yale University Library (CtY)[4] first-issue copies, the discovery of several
The following first-edition copies of Biathanatos have at least one of three characteristics: an inscription or presentation letter from Donne's son, John; fine paper; at least one of the seven recurring manuscript corrections, the first six in the "Epistle Dedicatory" and the last in the "Conclusion."
- (1) Inscribed "For ye Rt Honorable | the Kinsmoll. | October i9 | Io: Donne." (Bodleian Library, shelfmark Vet. A3 e 1496).[5] First issue, with the following corrections: (a) sig. ¶3, last line the Treatise] corrected to this Treatise; (b) sig. ¶3v, l. 6 writ] corrected to writen; (c) sig. ¶3v, l. 16 al most] corrected to al=most; (d) sig. ¶3v, l. 18 allarums] corrected to allarums); (e) sig. ¶4v, l. 7 truth.] corrected to truth,; (f) omits correction on sig. ¶4v, l. 8 morir.] corrected to morir,; and (g) sig. Ee2, l. 1 exacted] corrected to exalted.
- (2) Presented "For ye Rt wll Edward | Carter Esq." (ULC, H* 6. 46 E). Presenversity Library, Cambridge [ULC], G. 11. 8). Presentation letter as in Keynes (#2, p. 114) with the following exceptions (line number and incorrect reading from Keynes are left of bracket): l. 1, Mr] Mr; l. 6, belongs] beelongs; l. 8, thinke] thincke; l. 11, Couent Garden] Couent: Garden; l. 11, Jo] Io; and l. 11, Donne] Donne.. First issue, corrections (a)-(f).
- (3) Presented "For ye Rt w11 Edward | Carter Esq." (ULC, H* 6. 46 E). Presentation letter as in Keynes (#3, p. 114) except: l. 11, keeping] keepinge; l. 12, childrens] childrens,; l. 15, pittifull] pittefull; l. 17, Jo] Io; and l. 17, Donne] Donne.. First issue, corrections (a)-(e), (g).
- (4) Presented "For ye Rt Honble the | Earle of Denby. [Denbigh]." (Harvard University Library [MH], EC.D7187.644b [B]). Presentation letter as in Keynes (#4, p. 115) except: l. 1, Honble] Honble; l. 3, Havinge] Hauinge; l. 4, printed,] printed:; l. 4, upon] vpon; l. 5, beinge] beeinge; l. 10, hauinge] haueinge; l. 12, obedient Seruant] obedient | Seruant; and l. 13, Jo] Io. First issue, fine paper, corrections (a)-(g). Additional manuscript correction in the Epistle Dedicatory close (sig. ¶4v): From my house in | Covent-Garden. 28.] corrected to From my house in | Covent-Garden. 28.7ber [28 September].
- (5) Presented "To Sr Constantine Huygens |
Knight" (Speer
Library, Princeton Theological Seminary). The transcription of the
presentation letter in Keynes (#5, pp. 115-116) differs from that in Roland
Mushat Frye's "John Donne, Junior, on 'Biathanatos': A Presentation
Letter," N&Q, 197 (1952), 495-496, even though
Keynes
lists (p. 116) Frye as his source. Line numbers and readings left of the
bracket are from Keynes: l. 1, Knight.] Knight; l. 2, Sr.]
Sr; l. 4, yr]
yr; l. 5, England] Englande; l. 22, Sr
Your] Sr | Your; ll.
22-26, Seruant | John Donne | Couent Garden | London
Julio 29 | i649] Seruant | Couent Garden | London Julio 29 | i649 John Donne. First issue, fine paper with bunch of grapes and coat of arms watermarks, no corrections.[6]212
- (6) Presented "For ye Rt Honble ye Lord Marquesse | of Neucastle" (MH, EC. D7187.644b [C]). Listed as presentation copy by Keynes (#6, p. 116) but letter unmentioned; see transcription below. First issue, fine paper, corrections (a)-(f).
- (7) Presented to "I. Marckham" (location unknown). Keynes (#7, p. 116). An auction catalog of Richard Heber's books, the Bibliotheca Heberiana, 1834-36, Part the Eighth, provides the only information about this copy: "Donne (I.) on Homicide, with a Letter from his Son, the Editor, presenting the work to I. Marckham, 1647" (p. 37, item 728).
- (8) Presented "For ye Rt Hoble the Earle | of Oxforde." (Folger Shakespeare Library [DFo]). Presentation letter mentioned in Keynes (#8, p. 116), but not published.[7] First issue, fine paper, correction (g) only.
- (9) Presented to William Hodges (owned by R. S. Pirie). Keynes (#10, p. 116). First issue, fine paper, no corrections.[8]
- (10) CtY (Zd 1270) copy. First issue, corrections (a)-(g).
- (11) St John's College (Oxford) copy. First issue, corrections (a)-(f).
- (12) MH (EC.D7187.644 [A]) copy. First issue, corrections (b)-(f).
- (13) John Sparrow copy (A). First issue, corrections (a)-(d), (g).
- (14) John Sparrow copy (B). Second issue, corrections (a)-(f).
- (15) Ernest Sullivan copy (purchased from Francis Edwards Ltd., 7 July 1976). Second issue, corrections (a)-(f).
Dated letters and inscriptions plus other manuscript materials in five presentation copies and the dated Thomason second-issue copy place publication of the undated, first issue of Biathanatos in late September or early October of 1647. Three copies have fully dated presentation letters: copy (4), dated "Nouember i6 i647," with the "7ber" addition in the younger Donne's hand in the Epistle Dedicatory; (6), "May y io i648"; and (5), "Julio 29 i649." Three others are partially dated: (1), "October i9"; (2), "October 26"; and (7), dated "1647" in the Bibliotheca Heberiana. Since Moseley had published the second issue by "Dec: 2d 1647,"[9] the October dates of first-issue copies (1) and (2) must precede 2 December 1647, and, since no second-issue presentation copies exist, the "1647" copy (7) must also antedate 2 December. Biathanatos was licensed on "20. Sept. 1644" (first
Copy (4), with its presentation letter to the Earl of Denbigh dated "Nouember i6 i647," provides the key evidence for a 1647 publication date, evidence strengthened by indications that the younger Donne held this copy in special regard: printed on fine paper, it has the "7ber" addition (which very likely dates the Epistle Dedicatory) in his hand and is one of only two fully-corrected copies. Frequent pleas in the presentation letters that the recipient look upon the book with "favor" show that the younger Donne hoped to profit from publishing Biathanatos, and any delay would lessen the impression made by personal presentation copies; thus, had Biathanatos been published by 28 September 1646, he almost certainly would not have waited until 16 November 1647 to present the copy to Denbigh. Furthermore, sheet ¶, containing the Epistle Dedicatory, was printed last,[11] so that the younger Donne could have finished the Epistle Dedicatory on 28 September 1647 and easily have had it printed and bound before 16 November 1647.
A similar argument results in a 1647 date for copies (1) and (2). Copy (1), inscribed "October i9," and (2), with its "October 26" letter, could belong to 1646 since Biathanatos was entered in the Stationers' Register on 25 September 1646, but again it seems extremely unlikely that the younger Donne would wait for nearly a year after presenting these two ordinary-paper copies in October of 1646 to send the special copy to Denbigh on 16 November 1647. A "28.7ber" 1647 publication date would still allow time to prepare a copy for an "October i9" 1647 presentation; thus, the October dates also very probably belong to 1647, placing the publication of the first edition between 28 September and 19 October of 1647. Why the younger Donne waited until "Julio 29 i649" to present copy (5) to Constantine Huygens remains a mystery, though Huygens, who translated some of Donne's poems into Dutch, would have been an unlikely patron, but there was no delay in presenting copy (6) to Newcastle on "May y io i648": Newcastle, a Royalist, returned to England from Paris in April of 1648.
Although the younger Donne may have intended to present all the corrected ordinary-paper copies as well as the fine-paper copies, the facts that all five fine-paper copies (4, 5, 6, 8, and 9) were presented and that he kept the sheets of at least two fine-paper copies after selling the sheets of at least two ordinary-paper corrected copies to Humphrey Moseley support Keynes's hypothesis that "it is probable that the special printing [on fine paper] was made mainly for presentation" (p. 119).[12] Because the younger Donne presented
The pattern of corrections implies that they were made at different times. A single person or persons copying all the corrections at one time would almost certainly emend more consistently, particularly if using an Errata list. Of course, an emendator or emendators with an Errata list could produce an erratic correction pattern if the various corrections were initiated at different times from an updated Errata list; however, dated, corrected copies prove that the inconsistencies do not result from additions to an Errata list. The earliest dated, corrected copy, (1), lacks (f) but has (g); the next earliest, (2), has (f) but lacks (g). One might explain the addition of (f) to (2) by a later recognition of the need for the correction, but not the dropping of (g), a clearly authoritative correction.[13] Furthermore, copy (4), dated "Nouember i6 1647," has all the corrections; but (6), dated "May y io i648," lacks (g); and (5), dated "Julio 29 i649," has none. Lastly, no possible chronological ordering of the undated copies can account for copy (13) having corrections (a)-(d) and (g), while (12) has (b)-(g), as the result of an updated Errata sheet. The pattern of corrections, then, strongly implies that they were introduced over a period of time but not from an Errata sheet, and the inconsistencies very likely result from carelessness or forgetfulness.
The corrections were made after the sheets were positioned for binding, and ordinary-paper copies were corrected before 2 December 1647. All the corrections which offset do so on the pages which they face after normal
Although the sheets were corrected after positioning for binding, copy (6) offers dramatic evidence that the corrections could have been made before binding the sheets. In its presentation letter, reproduced below, the younger Donne suggests an intention to dedicate Biathanatos to Newcastle, and, to further this impression, the "List of Authors" (sigs. (*) 1-2v) in this copy has been put immediately before, rather than following, the printed Epistle Dedicatory to Philip Herbert; thus, the "List of Authors" comes between the presentation letter to Newcastle (sig. ¶1v) and the Epistle Dedicatory (beginning on sig. ¶3). Even with half sheet (*) between sigs. ¶2v and ¶3, however, the correction on sig. ¶3 offsets on sig. ¶2v, so the correction occurred before half-sheet (*) was positioned as presently bound,[17] perhaps long before presentation on "May y io i648." Since unbinding a fine-paper copy, inserting half-sheet (*) between sigs. ¶2v and ¶3, and rebinding the volume would have been some trouble and inevitably done some damage to the pages, the order of pages in (6) suggests that the younger Donne kept the sheets for presentation copies unbound until an opportunity or inspiration for presentation arose.
The evidence that the corrections are authoritative and initiated by the younger Donne is now overwhelming. On the basis of their occurrence in three copies, their clustering in the Epistle Dedicatory, the nonessential nature of corrections (a), (b), (e), and (f), and the textual authority of correction (g), I argued in "Authoritative" that all the corrections were authoritative and initiated by the younger Donne. The presence of the Epistle Dedicatory
The younger Donne, then, wrote in at least four of the "exalted" corrections and almost certainly initiated all the corrections, and the available evidence now strongly implies that he also corrected the dedicatory epistle. Each Epistle Dedicatory correction involves the same hand and technique: correction (a) has an "i" superimposed on the "e" with an "s" added; (b) has an "e" on one side and an "n" on the other of the comma following "writ"; in (c), (d), (e), and (f), the parallel lines, parenthesis, and commas all have
Unfortunately, the handwriting and correction technique do not conclusively identify the Epistle Dedicatory emendator,[20] but other evidence strongly suggests that the younger Donne authored the corrections. Many copies having manuscript materials in his hand also have Epistle Dedicatory corrections: he made correction (g) in copies (1), (3), (4), and (10), all of which have most of the Epistle Dedicatory corrections, as do five of the eight presentation copies. His manuscript addition, "7ber," in (6) proves that he wrote on a corrected page, sig. ¶4v, in at least one Epistle Dedicatory. The handwriting and erratic correction pattern proved that one person made corrections (a)-(f) over a period of time without an Errata sheet; the younger Donne had access to corrected sheets from 28 September 1647 to 10 May 1648 as well as the independent authority to make even the unnecessary corrections (a), (b), (e), and (f). Finally, as author of the Epistle Dedicatory, he certainly had a personal interest in its accuracy, particularly in presentation copies.
The previously unnoted letter in the first-issue, fine-paper copy presented to "ye Lord Marquesse of Neucastle," reproduced here by permission of the Houghton Library, confirms Donne's statement in a letter to Sir Robert Ker that Biathanatos had circulated in manuscript and makes it possible to trace the development of the holograph into the manuscript which served as the printer's copy for the first edition. In the letter to "Sr Robert Carre now Earle of Ankerum, with my Book Biathanatos at my going into Germany" written between 9 March and 12 May of 1619, Donne describes the circulation of the holograph: "no hand hath passed upon it to copy it, nor many eyes to read it: onely to some particular friends in both Universities, then when I writ it, I did communicate it . . ." (Letters, p. 21). As the unpublished letter shows, one of these friends was William Cavendish, First Duke of Newcastle (1592-1676), educated at St John's College, Cambridge (DNB III, 1273), and "Marquis of Newcastle" on 27 October 1643:
My Lorde
knowinge, you were pleased to looke vpon | this Booke, when it was in an imperfect | Manuscript, (manie yeares since) in the | hands of Sr Ieruaise Clifton; and, hauing | now printed it, only to defende it from | the mistakes of carelesse transcribers; | I beeleue, I cannot doe eyther my Father, or | my selfe, more right, then to present it | to your Lordships hands, soe entirely | from the Authors owne
Your Lordships
most humble Seruant
Io: Donne.
May y io
i648
Cavendish received the M.A. from St John's College (Cambridge) on 8 July of 1608, about the time Donne finished Biathanatos. Biographical notes compiled by the late F. P. White, Keeper of the Records at St John's College, and provided by A. G. Lee, the College Librarian, prove that "Sr Ieruaise Clifton" was Gervase Clifton, Esquire (1587-1666), posthumous son of George Clifton (died 1 August 1587) by Winifred, daughter of Sir Anthony Thorold and grandson of Sir Gervase Clifton of Clifton Hall in Nottinghamshire. Clifton attended St John's from 1603 until he received the M.A. in 1612. He was a friend and neighbor of Newcastle and an acquaintance of Henry Wotton,[21] which might account for his connection with Donne.
The younger Donne's comments on the various states of Biathanatos are maddeningly vague, but do fill in important links in the evolution of the holograph into the manuscript used by the younger Donne as the printer's copy for the first edition,[22] an evolution in which he may have participated. Donne's son does not specify whether the "imperfect Manuscript" possessed by Clifton was a holograph or what was "imperfect" about it, though his comment about not needing any "addition" in its present state could imply that he considered the earlier manuscript incomplete. Given Donne's statement in the letter to Ker that the manuscript had not been copied but shown to friends at the universities plus the presence of Clifton and Newcastle at St John's College about the time Donne finished Biathanatos, we can reasonably infer that the "imperfect Manuscript" was probably the original holograph, which Donne would add to extensively before it became the printer's copy.
The younger Donne's assessment of the holograph seen by Newcastle as "imperfect" (in the sense of "incomplete") relative to the printer's copy would seem correct on the basis of differences between the Bodleian manuscript and the first edition. Besides several lines omitted from the Bodleian manuscript as the result of eyeskip errors, the first edition contains the following additions: (1) hundreds of Section and Distinction headings in the text and numbered marginal glosses[23] of uncertain origin; (2) authoritative marginal annotations, "Herennius." (p. 51), "Festus." (p. 53), "Supra. fo. 66." (p. 66), "Vbi supra." (p. 101), "Stanf. Plees de Coron. cap. Petie treason." (p.
Since the Bodleian manuscript was transcribed before the holograph which served as the printer's copy conjecturally arrived at its final state, the holograph could have served as copy for the Bodleian manuscript as well as for the printer. Indeed, shared errors and incorrect marginal references in the quarto indicate that the Bodleian manuscript and the first edition probably derive from a single manuscript in different stages of completion.[26]
The statement about "the mistakes of carelesse transcribers" and claim that the quarto reproduces a manuscript "entirely from the Authors owne Penn" probably allude to the Bodleian manuscript. The younger Donne knew this manuscript: his presentation letters to Denbigh and Huygens extensively paraphrase his father's presentation letter sent with it to Lord Herbert of Cherbury.[27] The younger Donne's reference to "the mistakes of
Furthermore, his claim that the printer's copy is "entirely from the Authors owne Penn" may be false. The hundreds of Section and Distinction headings and numbered marginal glosses in the first edition but omitted in the Bodleian manuscript add no new information and contribute nothing to the understanding of the text; therefore, their source is uncertain. Surely had Donne considered such headings or glosses useful or necessary he would have included them when he added the hundreds of marginal annotations in the manuscript of Biathanatos sent to Lord Herbert of Cherbury. Since the first-edition running-title lists the Part, Distinction, and Section number from the table of contents for the text on every page, the headings in the text as well as the numbered glosses, which generally merely paraphrase the table of contents, are superfluous. It seems very unlikely that Donne, who, as the letter to Ker clearly shows, never intended to publish Biathanatos and who carefully limited its readership to congenial and learned persons, would add unnecessary headings and glosses to widen the possible audience of the work to the lazy and simple-minded, a purpose more suited to the financial needs of the younger Donne. And, indeed, the younger Donne could have been responsible for adding the headings and marginal glosses: the Newcastle presentation letter shows that he was familiar with differences between various stages and states of the texts of Biathanatos, and he made manuscript corrections in the Epistle Dedicatory and Conclusion.
Thanks to the letter to Newcastle, we have a more complete picture of
| ||