University of Virginia Library

Mr. John Sparrow's article, "Manuscript Corrections in the Two Issues of Donne's Biathanatos," The Book Collector, 21 (Spring, 1972), 29-32[1] describes three groups of manuscript corrections occurring in his copy of the first issue and his copy of the second issue of the first edition of Biathanatos.[2] First, in each copy of each issue on the first leaf (¶3) of the

Epistle Dedicatory,[3] the following four manuscript corrections appear: "recto: last line the Treatise] corrected to this Treatise / verso: . . . l. 6 writ,] corrected to writen [sic][4] / l.16 al most] corrected to almost [sic][5] / l.18 allarums] corrected to allarums)" (p. 29). Second, in only his second issue in the final lines of the Epistle Dedicatory, two manuscript corrections of the punctuation occur: sig. ¶4v, l. 7 truth.] corrected to truth,; sig. ¶4v, l. 8 morir.] corrected to morir, (p. 31). Finally, in only his first issue, we find the single manuscript correction in the body of the text of Biathanatos: sig. Ee2, l. 1 exacted] corrected to exalted (p. 30).

From just the information that the corrections in the second group occur only in Mr. Sparrow's copy of the second issue and that the correction in the third group occurs only in his copy of the first issue, one could not determine whether the corrections in the second and third groups are authoritative or whether any of the groups of corrections are related; however, all seven of the manuscript corrections found by Mr. Sparrow in either his copy of the first issue or in his copy of the second issue also occur in a single copy of the first issue at the Yale University Library. These corrections in the Yale copy of the first issue in conjunction with those in Mr. Sparrow's copy of each issue prove that all of the corrections are authoritative and that these alterations probably represent an effort on the part of the younger Donne to have some copies of the first issue of Biathanatos corrected.

Comparison of the corrections in the Epistle Dedicatory in Mr. Sparrow's copies with those in the Yale copy shows that a single emendator almost certainly made all six of the corrections in the Epistle Dedicatory. The corrections (on sigs. ¶3 and ¶3v) common to all three copies are identical and in the same hand;[6] thus, these four corrections were certainly

made by one person. The two corrections in punctuation which appear on sig. ¶4v in Mr. Sparrow's copy of the second issue (but not in his copy of the first issue) closely resemble (even in their exaggerated size) the corrections at the same place in the Yale copy of the first issue, and therefore these punctuation corrections were probably made by a single person, very likely the person who made the corrections on sigs. ¶3 and ¶3v in the Epistle Dedicatory. The fact that Mr. Sparrow's copy of the first issue lacks these punctuation corrections would appear to lessen somewhat the probability that one person made all six corrections in the Epistle Dedicatory; however, the possibility that a single person, making all of the corrections in the Epistle Dedicatory, carelessly omitted the two punctuation corrections on the final page of the Epistle Dedicatory in Mr. Sparrow's copy of the first issue seems more likely than the alternative possibility that some other person at a different time made these particular punctuation corrections in the same place with the same technique in two of the very copies having the other corrections.[7]

Even though we cannot specifically identify the particular emendator, we do know that all of the corrections in the Epistle Dedicatory were quite likely made at the publishing house. Since all six of the corrections in the Epistle Dedicatory appear in a single copy (Yale) of the first issue, they must all have been made during the manufacture or sale of the first issue. According to Mr. Sparrow (pp. 30 and 31), all of these corrections (except the one on the recto of sig. ¶3, facing the cancel title page in his copy of the second issue) in both of his copies offset. All the corrections in the Epistle Dedicatory of the Yale copy of the first issue also offset; hence, all six corrections were made at some time after the sheets of the first issue had been folded. Since the correction on the recto of sig. ¶3 did not offset on the cancel title page, we can reasonably assume that this correction (as well as the other corrections if made at the same time)[8] had been made before

Humphrey Moseley substituted the cancel title page of the second issue. The fact that this correction on sig. ¶3 offset on sig. ¶2v (except in Mr. Sparrow's copy of the second issue) also indicates that the corrections were made either immediately just before or sometime after sheet ¶ had been given its second and final folding in normal quarto order, suggesting that the corrections were made after the sheets were ready for binding.[9]

The probability that the corrections on sig. ¶4v (as well as those in the rest of the Epistle Dedicatory if also made at the same time) were made after the sheets had been bound or prepared for binding is further increased by the fact that the corrections on sig. ¶4v offset on sig. (*) 1. We know that the settings on the recto and verso of sigs. (*) 1.2 were printed on the same sheet as the settings on the recto and verso of sigs. Ee1.2.[10] As I have shown in my dissertation (pp. 121-122), the settings of the rectos and versos of sigs. (*) 1, (*) 2, Ee1, and Ee2 were arranged in the formes so that after printing the sheet could be cut in half with each of the halves to be then folded once and placed in the appropriate location in the volume. Thus, the corrections on sig. ¶4v could offset on sig. (*) 1 only if the sheets were in position for binding or already bound when the correction was made. The corrections in the Epistle Dedicatory, then, were almost certainly made while the sheets of the first issue were in position for binding or already bound and before the sheets were reissued by Moseley.

Since the six corrections in the Epistle Dedicatory were almost certainly made by a single emendator at a single point in time, they very likely have the same authority, and the nature of some of these corrections suggests that they are all authoritative. This near certainty that all of the corrections in the Epistle Dedicatory were made by the same person at the

same time reasonably establishes that the changes represent a deliberate effort at correction rather than a random event or tampering by the owner(s). The corrections involving 'the', 'writ,', and the punctuation were not at all necessary or obvious (certainly the printer of the second edition, using the first edition as his copy, did not make them, although he did make a number of other corrections); therefore, these corrections probably derive from an Errata list (or, less likely, a manuscript copy of the Epistle Dedicatory) rather than from the mind of the emendator, and they (and the other corrections made with them) should all be authoritative.[11]

The emendator of the Epistle Dedicatory may not have also made the correction from 'exacted' to 'exalted' on sig. Ee2 of the text of the Yale and Sparrow copies of the first issue, and we do not know when the correction was made, but this correction in the text of Biathanatos is very likely related to those in the Epistle Dedicatory and even more certainly authoritative. As Mr. Sparrow notes (p. 30), the correction on sig. Ee2 does not appear to be in the same hand as those corrections in the Epistle Dedicatory. The handwriting evidence is not conclusive, however, since the only letter offering direct comparison is an 'e'.[12] Unless, then, some as yet undiscovered examples of this correction on sig. Ee2 come to light in copies other than those also containing the manuscript corrections in the Epistle Dedicatory, the case for a single emendator or a pair of emendators working together on a limited number of copies being responsible for all seven of the corrections seems more plausible than the case that the corrections on sig. Ee2 are unrelated to those in the Epistle Dedicatory.

The authority of this correction on sig. Ee2 is even more certain than the authority of those corrections in the Epistle Dedicatory, contrary to the implications of Mr. Sparrow's article. Mr. Sparrow notes (p. 30) that this correction is the only one in the body of the text of Biathanatos, that this correction does not occur in his copy of the second issue, and that this correction is in a different hand from those in the Epistle Dedicatory. Given only these three observations, one could not logically conclude that the correction was authoritative; in fact, one might suspect the opposite. Knowing, however, that the Yale copy of the first issue also has this correction at the same place in the body of the text of Biathanatos, we can

assume that this correction was not a random event and probably not the work of the owner(s) of the books.[13] Since this change from 'exacted' to 'exalted' does not involve an obvious correction[14] (but does give a better reading), we can reasonably suspect that the correction did not originate in the mind of an emendator in the publisher's office. This correction also very likely derives from an Errata list; had the emendator been extensively checking the body of the text of Biathanatos in the first edition against the printer's manuscript (which closely resembled the Bodleian manuscript),[15] he undoubtedly would have made many more corrections in the first edition. Furthermore, the authority of the correction is strengthened by the fact that 'exalted' is the reading of the Bodleian manuscript at this point (p. 256, ll. 17-18), strongly implying that 'exalted' was also the reading in the printer's manuscript of Biathanatos. Thus, the correction from 'exacted' to 'exalted' also appears authoritative, even though perhaps inscribed by someone other than the emendator of the Epistle Dedicatory. Finally, the authority of all the corrections in the first edition of Biathanatos is enhanced by the existence of similar manuscript corrections in other seventeenth-century works.[16]

The occasion for making the corrections cannot be precisely determined, but enough evidence exists to warrant conjecture that the younger Donne had the publisher make them. Because six of the seven corrections cluster in the Epistle Dedicatory, it would seem very possible that the younger Donne (who would have been especially interested in the correctness of the Epistle Dedicatory),[17] in looking over the Epistle Dedicatory after all of the sheets had been printed (and many probably bound or sold), noticed the apparent errors and called them to the attention of the publisher. Given also that (1) the only other correction occurs on sig. Ee2 and that (2) a sheet containing sig. Ee2 could easily have been adjacent to a sheet containing the Epistle Dedicatory at the publisher's (assuming that the preliminary materials were printed in the same order as they appear in the first edition and that the sheets at the publisher's were in the order in which they were printed), we can suspect that the younger Donne, in examining the Epistle Dedicatory, also glanced at the adjacent sheet (containing sigs. Ee1, Ee1v, Ee2, Ee2v, (*) 1, (*) 1v, (*) 2, and (*) 2v) and happened to recognize the erroneous reading of 'exacted' (which, as the last word in the first line on sig. Ee2, would have been in a conspicuous location). Since the need for the correction of 'exacted' and the correct emendation to 'exalted' almost certainly would not be apparent to an average person from a glance at the sheet, and since we know that the correction was not the result of extensive checking of the first edition against the printer's manuscript, we can reasonably infer that someone acquainted with the text of Biathanatos, as was the younger Donne, initiated the correction.

The presence of the corrections on both sheet ¶ (containing the Epistle Dedicatory) and the sheet containing sig. Ee2—which could have been seen together only while the sheets were in their uncut state—suggests that some time passed between the initial recognition of the need for correction

and the actual making of the corrections, since the corrections could not have actually been made until after the sheet containing sigs. Ee1, Ee1v, Ee2, Ee2v, (*) 1, (*) 1v, (*) 2, and (*) 2v had been cut and folded and sig. (*) 1 (on which the corrections present on sig. ¶4v offset) placed next to sig. ¶4v. The occurrence of the corrections on sig. Ee2 in at least one fewer copy than the corrections in the Epistle Dedicatory could be explained either as a simple omission by the emendator or by the younger Donne's reviewing the sheet containing the Epistle Dedicatory at two separate times and failing to notice the reading of 'exacted' until the second time, by which time at least the one copy had been removed from the publisher's.

The presence of all the corrections in a single copy of the first issue, the near certain authority of the corrections, the clustering of the corrections in the Epistle Dedicatory, the existence of the corrections (many in the same hand) in at least three copies of the first edition, and the likelihood that the need for the corrections was recognized before the sheet containing sig. Ee2 was cut even though the corrections were not actually made until after the sheets in these three copies had been cut and bound, all imply that the corrections represent an effort by the younger Donne, acting through the publisher, to improve the readings in some copies of the first issue.

Although two of these seven manuscript corrections may appear trivial ('al most' to 'almost' and 'allarums' to 'allarums)'), and another ill-advised ('morir.' to 'morir,' immediately before the closing 'Your Lordships . . .'), two corrections do involve stylistic differences ('the' to 'this' and 'writ' to 'writen'), and two others yield clearly superior readings ('truth." to 'truth,' and 'exacted' to 'exalted'), the former creating a substantially different interpretation of the Epistle Dedicatory. Before the correction from 'truth.' to 'truth,' (l. 7) the phrase 'firme and established truth' (ll. 6-7) referred back to 'this Doctrine' (l. 6). As Mr. Sparrow argues (p. 31), 'this Doctrine' is undoubtedly an allusion to the 'Doctrine' of Donne's treatise, that suicide is not always a sin. In this context, the Epistle Dedicatory would seem to support the integrity of Donne's argument—an integrity that has been questioned at length in A. E. Malloch's unpublished dissertation, "A Critical Study of Donne's Biathanatos" (Toronto, 1958) and in Richard Hughes' The Progress of the Soul: The Interior Career of John Donne (1968). After the correction, however, the phrase 'firme and established truth' refers forward to the Spanish proverb, 'Da vida osar morir' (l. 8). In the new context, then, the closing sentence of the Epistle Dedicatory need not be read as supporting the integrity of Donne's announced 'Doctrine'.

These manuscript changes in the first edition of Biathanatos are relatively rare; they do not occur in the copies of the first issue of the first edition at CLUC, CSmH, DLC (ND 0332947), MH (Augustus Jessopp's

copy), and NjP, or the copies of the second issue at the CSmH, L (George Thomason's copy), and NNUT. The second edition (1700), which almost certainly derives from a copy of the first edition that lacked the manuscript corrections, has 'almost' (probably from a copy of the first edition in which the hyphen printed) where the Sparrow and Yale copies have printed 'al most', and where all copies of the first edition have erroneously printed 'allarums' the second edition has changed the capitalization and added the necessary parenthesis, 'Allarums)'. Had the compositor of the second edition been using a copy of the first edition containing the corrections, he probably would have made the emendation from 'exacted' to 'exalted'. The relative rarity of the corrections could be caused by the younger Donne not checking the readings of the Epistle Dedicatory until after all the sheets had been printed; thus, by the time he could communicate the need for the corrections to the publisher and the publisher subsequently begin making the corrections, many of the sheets had been sold or distributed.

A final problem posed by Mr. Sparrow in a note on page 31 ("how it was that the younger Donne, when he presented a copy [of Biathanatos] to [Constantine] Huygens in 1649, was able to quote verbatim from a letter sent by his father to [Lord] Herbert more than thirty years before") can be solved by the knowledge that in 1642 Lord Herbert of Cherbury presented his manuscript copy of Biathanatos (containing the letter by Donne to Lord Herbert on the leaf of the title page) to the Bodleian Library, where the younger Donne surely would have had access to it. The younger Donne printed the letter on pages 20-21 of his edition of Letters to Severall Persons of Honour: written by John Donne (London: J. Flesher, 1651).