University of Virginia Library

The Date of the Separate Edition of Milton's "Epitaphium Damonis"
by
John T. Shawcross

Recently Professor Harris F. Fletcher suggested that the separate, undated eight-page edition of "Epitaphium Damonis," Milton's elegy to Charles Diodati, the unique copy of which is in the British Museum, was published after the first edition of Milton's minor poems, which includes the elegy, in 1645.[1] His conclusion derives from comments in letters of 1647 and 1648, which may refer to the separate publication, and from a similarity of its type to type used by Matthew Simmons (a frequent printer of Milton's prose tracts), but not to that used by Ruth Raworth in the 1645 volume. Professor Fletcher's suggestion does not seem to be tenable not only because what evidence he adduces is uninstructive and indistinct, but because certain textual and compositorial matters show that the separate printing was a source for the text of 1645.[2]

The undated and the 1645 texts of this elegy show many similarities of spelling, pointing, and capitalization, despite a number of differences. But for the most part similarities do not point out precedence: for example, the spelling "Deodatus" in the argument (but the regular "Diodatus" in line 210), or the odd "Hy-/lan" in line 1, or "facili" (rather than "facile") in line 145, or "Imus?" (where a question mark is unnecessary and not really correct) in line 148, or the paragraph at 198 (the only paragraph, other than the first, not beginning with the refrain; a passage of twenty-two lines, grammatically and subjectively a continuation of the previous paragraph, lines 179-197)[3] —none of these can be said to indicate the priority of one printing over the other. Such similarities, however, do imply a relationship between the two printings. On the other hand, one may note that the undated edition sometimes uses a vowel with a cedilla for a ligature, sometimes the ligature itself. This vowel with cedilla in the undated printing seems to account for the 1645 spelling "Letáque," line 216 (rather than

"Lætáque"). Perhaps the printer of the undated copy meant to use the cedilla with "sepe," line 54 (for "sæpe"); regardless, 1645 has the same form, "sepe." Significantly, these are the only two occurrences in the poem in which 1645 prints "e" when the ligature is desirable. Although the 1645 printer usually set capital ligatures, two examples with distinct letters come through: "Aegon," line 70, and "Aegle," line 88. These are the forms of the undated edition, which never employs capital ligatures; hence the 1645 readings appear to be slips from following printed copy too exactly at these two places. Line 78 should probably show a strong terminal stop, but the undated text uses no punctuation and the 1645 printer seems to be trying to emend by using a comma. It is unlikely that the compositor of the undated text would not replace the comma by some point, if that were the order of editions, rather than just delete it.

Helpful also are other frequent differences. Errors aside, would the printer of the undated text simply delete the colon after "carmen", line 3; the apostrophe after "mihi", line 19; the periods at the end of paragraphs in lines 34, 49, 67, 80, 160, 161, 178? (Milton's manuscripts frequently offer evidence of such omissions, suggesting that a text with such omissions is related to a manuscript. As example, let us take lines 165-193 of "Lycidas" in the Trinity MS. Necessary strong punctuation is not found in lines 171, 177, 181, 182, 185, 187, 189, 191, 192, 193, although there is a colon at the end of line 173.) Certainly the 1645 punctuation of lines 19 and 20 (a comma rather than a question mark, and a semicolon rather than an exclamation point) is preferable to that of the other text, which requires emendation. The long and regular "s" combination of "clarissimisque" in the undated argument would hardly replace the double long "s" of the 1645 argument.

It would seem that noteworthy similarities and differences point to a close relationship between the two texts and to the priority of the undated printing, which is frequently altered in 1645 to improve certain readings.

The question of the printer may also be raised, although the answer does not establish the publication date. The fonts of the texts of the undated elegy and the 1637 A Maske ("Comus"), excluding title pages, introductory material, etc., are the same, measuring two and three millimeters respectively for lower and upper case. The font is English, fourteen point. Some of the titling types of A Maske are those in the elegy, measuring five millimeters. Matrix characteristics such as the double cuspated "A" of "Ast" (Epitaphium, 14), and of "And" (A Maske, 870) in the text and the double cuspated "A" of "DAMONIS" (A1r) and "A MASKE" (A1r) in the titles establish the fonts as identical. This particular font regularly uses a question mark that looks battered; it appears five times in sig. B of A Maske, sixteen in sig. C, ten times in sig. D, and six times in sig. E, and thirteen times in Epitaphium. But it is interesting to note that the italic question mark of A Maske (see lines 237, 494, 512) appears, perhaps through foul case, four times in the elegy (lines 22, 147, 171, 200).

The type used in the two poems is very well-worn. It seems to be identical, but distinct letters are few and difficult to discern because of poor presswork. The damaged "C" of "Cassibelauni," Epitaphium, 149, is found in "Comus," A Maske, direction between 658-659; the bent and battered "M" of "Musæ," Epitaphium, 13, was used for "My," A Maske, 2; and the broken "g" of "dignumque," Epitaphium, 24, was that of "gladly," A Maske, 413. It may be significant that the texts of both Epitaphium Damonis and A Maske use only capital "V," never capital "U." (1645 does use "U.") And perhaps most important is the similar row of type ornaments (national emblems) of the elegy (A1v) and the epistle to A Maske (A2r). This consists of various type ornaments (each ornament here designated by a letter) printed in a row; we can diagram these ornaments as ABCDEABCDFABCDE for the epistle and ABCDABCDABCDABCE for the elegy. That is, the epistle to A Maske is headed by five ornaments printed one after the other in a row three times except that what would have been the fifth ornament in the second grouping is a different (or sixth) ornament, probably as a result of foul case; and the elegy is headed by the identical first four ornaments printed one after the other in a row four times, except that what would have been the fourth ornament in the fourth grouping is the identical fifth ornament used in the A Maske row.

If the printer of Epitaphium was the printer of A Maske, as seems likely, then he was Augustine Mathewes, as William R. Parker has shown.[4] Mathewes was still publishing in 1653, although he had run into difficulties as a result of the licensing act of 1637. The lack of colophon for Epitaphium may thus be due to Mathewes' particular situation as an unlicensed printer. The poem was probably written in October (or perhaps November) 1639.[5] Prior to this time the only printer whom Milton seems to have had direct contact with[6] was Mathewes, and then only a short while before. (A Maske was apparently published in early 1638, despite the date 1637 on the title page, which must have been legal-year dating;[7] shortly afterward Milton started his tour of the continent, returning a few months before the elegy was written.) It is natural that he would have sought out his "recent" printer for this special and limited job. Had the epitaph been published

between May 1641 and March 1645, we would expect the printer to have been one of the various men who produced his eleven prose works of that period. In this way only does the identification of printer suggest a publication date: the eight-page edition would probably have been produced by Mathewes before Milton had become acquainted with other printers in 1641 and probably soon after its composition. Therefore, the usual date of 1640(?) seems acceptable but not unquestionable, although 1639(?) has by the same reasoning much to offer as publication date.

Notes