University of Virginia Library

Search this document 


expand section 
expand section 
expand section 
expand section 
expand section 
expand section 
expand section 
expand section 
expand section 
expand section 
expand section 
expand section 
collapse section 
The Early Editions of Sir Walter Ralegh's The History of the World by John Racin, Jr.
expand section 
expand section 
expand section 
expand section 
expand section 

expand section 


Page 199

The Early Editions of Sir Walter Ralegh's The History of the World
John Racin, Jr. [*]

No student of Sir Walter Ralegh can fail to profit from the detailed researches of Dr. T. N. Brushfield (1828-1910), who published a series of biographical-bibliographical studies of Ralegh, the most important of which describe the circumstances of the writing and suppression of Ralegh's The History of the World and provide bibliographical data on its editions.[1] Unfortunately, Brushfield's work has led to a number of misconceptions which have been tenaciously long-lived. The purpose here is to examine the story of the printing, suppression, and reprinting of the History.

The "facts" of the story, established mainly by Brushfield and accepted by Sir Charles Firth[2] and a host of modern biographers, may be simply summarized. Ralegh, condemned to the Tower in 1603 under the sentence of death, began his universal history in about 1607.[3] The work was entered in the Stationers' Register April 15, 1611, but did not appear until March, 1614.[4] Its popularity was immediate. Having roused James's anger, however, it was suppressed by George Abbot, the Archbishop of Canterbury, December 22, 1614. James was especially incensed by the fact that Ralegh, a man "civilly dead," had the "impudence" (to use Firth's term) to have his portrait engraved on the title-page. However, a compromise was soon reached. The government rescinded the suppression order with the stipulation that the title-page be removed to render the work anonymous. The first edition (STC 20637), printed by William Stansby for Walter Burre, was then re-issued, possibly three times. The second edition (STC 20637a),


Page 200
also printed by Stansby for Burre, appeared in 1614 with all of the errata of the first edition corrected. In 1617 two more editions were printed (several modern biographers have claimed three), one by Stansby for Burre (STC 20638) and the other by William Jaggard for Burre (STC 20638a). Of these, according to Brushfield, the Jaggard contained the portrait title-page, which now reappeared for the first time since the initially suppressed Stansby 1614 edition. Brushfield also stated that the Jaggard 1617 was revised by Ralegh, a claim which has caused it to be regarded by some as the most authoritative text. Jaggard then re-issued the work in 1621 (STC 20639).

In its major details the story is untenable. It is based largely on conjecture and on questionable, even careless, bibliographical procedures. This study will consider the following points: (1) the suppression, (2) the "issues" of the Stansby 1614 and the "second" Stansby 1614, (3) the relations between the Stansby 1614 and 1617 editions, (4) the relations between the Stansby 1617 and the Jaggard 1617 and 1621 editions. It will be argued that no compromise with suppression took place, that the "issues" are actually variant states, that the "second" Stansby 1614 is a ghost, and that the "Jaggard 1617" is a ghost.

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


Page 201
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


Page 202
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


Page 203
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


Page 204
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.

"Issues" of the Stansby 1614

The possibility of the re-issue of the Stansby 1614 is intimately related to the supression question. We have seen that Brushfield doubted the suppression on the basis of his discovery of "issues." Initially he identified two "issues," the first containing errata and the second (termed the "second edition" in the STC and the British Museum Catalogue) having the errata corrected.

This "second edition" is a ghost. In reality it is a Stansby 1617. It was miscatalogued in the British Museum because although it contains the dated engraved title-page, it lacks a colophon. In 1897 the British Museum acquired a copy of the Stansby 1617, the original error was discovered, and it was recatalogued as an imperfect copy of the Stansby 1617.[13] The STC,


Page 205
however, compiled from the Short-Title Catalogue of English Books in the Library of the British Museum . . . to the year 1640 (1884), perpetuated the original error. Brushfield must have discovered his error in 1897, for he never mentioned this particular "second issue" again. Nevertheless, in subsequent papers he did not warn of his previous erroneous descriptions. Ralegh scholars, probably following the STC, have repeated the error many times.

In 1904 Brushfield advanced a new argument for three, possibly four, issues (Trans. Devon. Assoc., XXXVI, 189-191). To classify what he termed Nos. I, II, and III Issues, he presented the variant readings for each. This claim was allowed to stand until doubts concerning his use of "issue" were raised in the Pforzheimer Catalogue account of the Stansby 1614. The account noted that six of the readings Brushfield cited which distinguished Nos. II and III from I did not appear (according to Brushfield's own testimony) on reset pages. In addition the seven reset pages which Brushfield cited as indicative of No. II were not reset in the Pforzheimer copy even though this copy possessed "all the distinctive readings of Brushfield's second 'issue' and none of his first or third" (III, 847). In my examination of the Folger copy and the two copies in The Lilly Library of Indiana University, it became apparent that Brushfield's classification actually records variant states in individual copies. Unlike the Pforzheimer copy, which conforms to Brushfield's No. II, the three copies, which differ from each other, individually contain readings of all of Brushfield's "issues." In the Folger copy the pages noted by Brushfield were not reset. The changes occur in the midst of the same type setting (not by cancels) and thus are press corrections. The corrected state of O4v follows Brushfield's No. I; the corrected 4Z6v, 3A1, 3B3v, D6v, and 5I2 follow Brushfield's II; the corrected G1v, 2X5, 4O1, and 6O5 follow II and III; the uncorrected 2A4 and 6P4 follow Brushfield's hypothesized issue preceding I; and the corrected 5K6v follows none of Brushfield's issues. Fredson Bowers has indicated: ". . . press-alterations in the text can constitute only variant states of the press-altered formes concerned. Press-correction in the text of hand-printed books is so common that when it is combined with indiscriminate binding of the sheets no state of the book as a whole can result, let alone separate issues."[14] And this is precisely the case with the Stansby 1614.

Thus one 1614 edition containing numerous states was printed, and it was not re-issued. The suppression order apparently remained in force.

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


Page 206
(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 20638a). 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.

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


Page 207
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-5Z66 ¶¶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


Page 208
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


Page 209
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.



This study began as part of a longer work completed under the direction of Professor Ruth Hughey, to whom many thanks are due. I wish also to thank Professors Fredson Bowers and Lester Beaurline, who read an earlier draft of this paper and provided invaluable criticism.


"The Bibliography of Sir Walter Ralegh, with Notes," The Western Antiquity, V (1886), 183-190; 213-220; 241-248; 270-282. "Sir Walter Ralegh and his 'History of the World,'" Transactions of the Devonshire Association, XIX (1887), 389-418. "Sir W. Ralegh and his 'History of the World,'" N. & Q., 8th S., V (1894), 441-442. "Raleghana, Part VI. 'The History of the World,' By Sir Walter Ralegh. A Bibliographical Study," Trans. Devon. Assoc., XXXVI (1904), 181-218. A Bibliography of Sir Walter Ralegh Knt. 2nd ed. (1908).


"Sir Walter Raleigh's History of the World," Essays Historical and Literary (1938), first printed in the Proceedings of the British Academy (1917-18), 427-446.


The conjectured date is Brushfield's: Trans. Devon. Assoc., XIX (1887), 392-393.


"Walter Ralegh Historiam suam universalem in lucem edit," March 29, 1614, Camdeni Epistolae (1691), Appendix, p. 9.


The Letters of John Chamberlain, 2 vols., ed. by Norman E. McClure (1939), I, 568.


This description betrays some of Brushfield's early confusion. The "second issue" he here described was in reality a Stansby 1617. This confusion on "issues" led to his argument against suppression. Later when he discovered that suppression did take place, he argued for three and possibly four issues of the 1614 edition, an argument inconsistent with suppression.


Sir Walter Ralegh, (1891), p. 281.


Here further confusion is present. In actuality the second edition Brushfield refers to is the Stansby 1617, which contains a printed title-page.


The undated printed title-page (which contains Ralegh's half-portrait) must not be confused with the engraved allegorical title-page (designed by Reginald Elstracke). This engraved title-page, dated 1614, appears unaltered in the 1614, 1617, 1621, 1628, and 1634 editions. It was redated in the 1652 edition. The dated title-page has led to the miscataloguing of editions from 1617 to 1634 which lack a colophon.


II, viii-xxx. When referring to the History, I cite the volume and page from The Works of Sir Walter Ralegh, Kt., 8 vols. (1829). This edition of the History is the most accurate in existence.


"The AVTHOR TO THE READER," The History of the Most Renowned and Victorious Princesse Elizabeth, Late Queene of England, trans. by R. [N]orton (1630), sig. B2.


Charles Williams, James I (1934), p. 218.


For this information I am indebted to Howard M. Nixon, Deputy Keeper in the Department of Printed Books at the British Museum. At my request Mr. Nixon compared twelve selected pages in the Stansby 1614 and 1617 against the pages in STC 20637a and reported: "In every instance [the STC 20637a] agrees with our edition with the colophon dated 1617 and differs from the true 1614 edition." This confirms the statement of the Pforzheimer Catalogue (III, 847) that STC 20637a is a ghost.


"Criteria for Classifying Hand-Printed Books as Issues and Variant States," Papers of the Bibliographical Society of America, XLI (1947), 277.


The Letters of John Chamberlain, II, 67. The letter is dated March 29, 1617.


A Bibliography, p. 90.


A Checklist of American Copies of "Short-Title Catalogue" Books locates twenty-two copies of the Stansby 1614, five of the Stansby 1617, two of the "Jaggard 1617", nine of the Jaggard 1621, seven of the 1628, and nine of the 1634 edition. Of course, A Checklist is by no means complete.


The same collation is used in the 1621, 1628, 1634, and 1652 editions. Some distinctive features of the Jaggard edition (based on the Williams "Jaggard 1617" and on the University of Cincinnati and the Folger copies of the 1621): Bks. I-II, [323] as 327; Bks. III-V, [185] as 149, [297] as 397, [299] as 399, [471] as 463, [546] as 446, [548] as 584. ["of the fourth book"] as "of the third book", sig. b6; ["The Second Booke of the first part"] as "The first Booke of the first part", Bks. I-II, pp. 186, 190, 194, 196; ["Chap. 1.§. 7."] as "Chap. 2. §. 7.", Bks. I-II, p. 189; ["Chap. 4. §. 4."] as "Chap. 4. §. 3.", I-II, 226; ["Chap. 4. §. 5."] as 'Chap. 3. §. 5." I-II, 227; ["Chap. 5. §. 3."] as "Chap. 4. §. 3.", I-II, 251; ["Chap. 5. §. 5."] as "Chap. 5. §. 6.", III-V, 580. In addition, Bk. IV, ch. vii and the title of Bk. V, ch. i were omitted in "The Contents."


He described the two Jaggard texts as identical on four separate occasions: The Western Antiquity, V (1886), 244; Trans. Devon. Assoc., XIX (1887), 404; Trans. Devon. Assoc., XXXVI (1904), 195; A Bibliography, p. 91.


The Williams copy of "Jaggard 1617" contains an entry in secretary script on its first blank leaf, recto: "Richard Harketts Booke bought the first of January 1623 Cost xxiiL:"


The Stansby 1617 "powerlesse" (I-II, 232, 43) and "empire" (III-V, 554, 49) are repeated in the Jaggard (I-II, 194, 40; III-V, 474, 36).