The Stansby 1617, the "Jaggard 1617" and the Jaggard
1621
The first notice of the "Jaggard 1617" (STC
20638a)
was given by Brushfield in 1886 (The Western Antiquity, V,
244). Sabin, on the strength of Brushfield's notice, listed it in his
dictionary, but indicated that he had
not seen it (
Bibliotheca, XVI, 259-260). Brushfield said of
this
edition in 1908: "It is the first with a title-page headed '
The History
of the World in fiue Bookes by sir Walter Ralegh, Knight.'
Occupying more than one half of it is a portrait of Ralegh. . . . We may
take it for granted that this edition was revised by him."
[16]
Even though he gave no supporting evidence, Brushfield's conclusion
has stood unchallenged. On the basis of this claim, some have come to
regard it as the most authoritative text, which no doubt has caused much
inconvenience since it is by far the rarest.[17] Brushfield's conclusion, however,
is false.
The relations between the Stansby 1617 and the "Jaggard 1617" and 1621
(STC 20639) show not only that Ralegh did not revise, but
that
the "Jaggard 1617" is a ghost. The spectral nature of the "Jaggard 1617"
is proved by two conditions: the same type-pages printed both Jaggard
texts; the copy-text of the Jaggard edition was the Stansby 1617.
I have examined the Williams College Library copy of the "Jaggard
1617." It collates: 20, π4
A-B6 C4 a6
b8
A-S6 T-V4, 2A-5Z6
¶6 ¶¶6 *6
**8.[18] I have
compared
photostats of twelve selected pages from the Yale, Cambridge University,
and British Museum copies with the Williams copy. The same type-pages
printed all four copies. Each bears the colophon: "London / Printed by
William Iaggard for Walter / Burre, and are to be sold at his Shop in
Paules Church-/yard at the signe of the Crane. / 1617." Moreover, I have
compared side by side the Jaggard texts and can confirm Brushfield's
description of them as identical.[19]
Both contain the two title-pages. The date in the colophon is the only means
of distinguishing between the two, except for two signature variations (1617
[A] as B is corrected in the 1621; 1617 **2 is erroneously ** in the 1621)
and for two pagination
variations (1617 [473] as 437 and [448] as 484 are corrected in the 1621).
The 1621
colophon page (not a cancel) is identical with the "1617" except that the
date was reset; nothing else was. The same type-pages printed both Jaggard
texts including the colophons.
However, in order to classify the Jaggard 1621 as a re-impression of
the "Jaggard 1617," as Brushfield did (Bibliography, p. 91),
one must assume that the Jaggard 1621 was printed from standing type (the
type-pages complete with furniture kept inactive four years). Such an
assumption is, of course, absurd. Therefore the conclusion must be drawn
that the "Jaggard 1617" was printed after 1617.
This conclusion is proven by the relations between the Stansby 1617
and the Jaggard edition. The differences between the two editions resulted
from the efforts to reduce costs, which evidently were formidable.[20] The size of the folio was reduced
by some
hundred leaves, mainly through increasing the number of lines per page
from fifty-four to fifty-eight. Nothing in the text was omitted. That Jaggard
used the Stansby 1617 as his copy text is shown by an analysis of the
original 131 errata. Of these readings the Jaggard follows the text of the
Stansby 1614 three times. It follows the corrections of the Errata three
times. It introduces two new errors. It follows the text of the Stansby 1617
123 times.
Of these 123 readings, 104 are corrections. Seventeen are original
errata which were uncorrected in the Stansby 1617. The remaining two
readings are substantive errors introduced in the Stansby 1617.[21] No other source exists. The
following
examples are typical of many which reveal that Jaggard's compositors used
the Stansby 1617 with (as the second example shows) an occasional glance
at the 1614 Errata page. First are listed the erratum and correction of the
Errata page, then the readings in the Stansby and Jaggard texts.
-
erratum
To confirme them in this
opinion. M. Bœbius
-
correction
To confirme them in this
opinion, M. Bœbius [without any
breaking]
-
Stansby 1614 To confirme them in this opinion. /
M. Bœbius [the line is completed to the right margin]
(Bks.
III-V, p. 575, ll. 14-15)
-
Stansby 1617 To confirme them in this/opinion.
[line
blank to right margin]/ M. Bœbius [rest of line complete]
(III-V, 575, 14-16)
-
Jaggard 1621 To confirme them in this opinion:
[line
blank to right margin]/ M. Bœbius [rest of line complete]
(III-V, 492, 26-28)
We may surmise that Stansby's 1617 compositor (who repeated the
punctuation error) blocked out line 15 with quads in order to begin line 16
in agreement with his copy text. Jaggard's compositor (alert enough to
correct
the punctuation) blocked out his line 27 with quads for no other reason than
that he was following the Stansby 1617.
-
erratum
Galilœus is
superfluous
-
Stansby 1614
Galilœus,
Galilœus, a worthy Astrologer now liuing, (I-II, 100,
50)
-
Stansby 1617
GALILÆVS, a
worthy
Astrologer now liuing, (I-II, 100, 50)
-
Jaggard 1621 A worthy Astrologer now liuing,
(I-II,
85, 43)
Using the Stansby 1617 along with the Errata page and unaware that the
correction had been made, Jaggard's compositor removed GALILÆVS
and inadvertently made the "astrologer" anonymous. If he had been using
the Stansby 1614 text, he would simply have made the correction.
In reprinting the History, Jaggard used the most recent
edition available to him, the Stansby 1617. How then could both editions
have appeared in the same year? The Pforzheimer Catalogue
(III, 846) estimates the time necessary for printing a work this size as
"several years." A new edition with a new makeup could not have been
composed and printed in less than a year. Thus we have further indication
that the Jaggard edition did not first appear in 1617.
Since the Jaggard had as its copy-text the Stansby 1617 and since it
was impossible that the 1621 was printed from standing type, the conclusion
must be drawn that the "Jaggard 1617" is a ghost. A few copies were run
off with a misdated colophon (perhaps accounting for its rarity); the error
was discovered and corrected.
This study indicates that instead of five printings of the
History between 1614 and 1621, there were three: the
Stansby
1614, 1617, and the Jaggard 1621. The only substantive edition is the 1614;
the second and third editions are unrevised reprints of no authority.
