The Stansby 1614 and 1617 Editions
After Ralegh's release from the Tower in March, 1616, the Stansby
1617 (the true second edition) appeared — a page for page reprint
of
1614 except for an inserted leaf in the preliminaries and some altered
catchwords.
The Folger copy of the Stansby 1617 contains a printed title-page
(nothing suggests it was not part of the volume as it was first bound). This
fact deserves notice because Brushfield lapsed into self-contradictions in his
discussion of the title-page. In 1894 he stated that the "sole appreciable
difference" between the two editions is that the 1617 contains a title-page
(
N. &
Q., 8th S., V, 441-442). Yet in his
1908
Bibliography (p. 90), without any explanation, he reversed
himself. He then stated that the title-page is absent from the Stansby 1617
and that it first appeared in what he termed the "1617 (2) edition," the
edition printed by Jaggard (
STC 20638
a).
Despite
Brushfield's conflicting descriptions, the Stansby 1617 was the first to
contain the portrait title-page. Its appearance at this time, doubtless with
Ralegh's permission, indicates that Ralegh had risen from his "civill death,"
at least nominally; a development which underlines the irony of his
execution in 1618.
Since the Stansby 1617 was the last to appear in Ralegh's lifetime, the
vital question concerns the possibility of authorial revision. No such
revisions took place, a fact which is not surprising. In the interval between
Ralegh's release from the Tower and his departure from London in March,
1617, he was preparing for his voyage to Orinoco, a gamble upon which
his fortune and very life were to depend. Permission for the voyage had
been wrung from the reluctant James, "no frend to the journey," and almost
immediately Ralegh left London in haste fearing a royal
countermand.[15] It is inconceivable
that Ralegh took time to see the work through the press, a work, it should
be remembered, which had proved a major disappointment to Ralegh's
hopes of pleasing James. If Ralegh could not gratify James's "love of
learning," he now would take all risks to gratify James's need of
gold.
The differences between the two Stansby editions resulted from the
printer's fairly diligent efforts to improve on the first edition. He was able
to include a printed title-page. The nine errata in the Preface were
corrected. Of the 131 errata listed in the Errata, 107 were corrected,
twenty-one were not (no Errata warns of this), and three new readings were
introduced (two errors and one minor improvement). Two of the five
pagination errors were corrected in Bks. I-II, but two new ones were made
in Bks. III-V. The three signature errors were corrected. Two running-title
errors in "The Contents" were corrected, but four in the text were not. In
a side by side comparison of the Folger copies of the editions, except for
minor alterations in spelling and punctuation, no other differences were
detected. Thus the 1617 is a reprint. The substantive edition is the
1614.
