University of Virginia Library

Which Speght?

If Blake did not use Thynne, Stow, Urry, or Tyrwhitt, the only remaining possibilities are the three Speght editions, of 1598, 1602, and 1687. Of these, the 1598 can be eliminated immediately. In addition to containing a variety of incongruencies of the kind that discredit Urry and Tyrwhitt as Blake's source, 1598 does not credit Thynne for helping with the glossary, and, more tellingly, lists a Goldsmith rather than the usual Carpenter among the tradesmen. Because the Goldsmith is only in the 1598 Speght, as Kiralis shows (167-168), it was surely this edition that led Thomas Stothard, Blake's rival in depicting the Pilgrims, to include a Goldsmith in his version of the subject. Thus we can be just as certain that Blake did not use the 1598 Speght when he wrote the Descriptive Catalogue as we can that Stothard used it when he painted his picture. Blake includes the Carpenter and mocks Stothard's Goldsmith: "But the painter's thoughts being always on gold, he has introduced a character that Chaucer has not; namely a Goldsmith" (Erdman 540).

This leaves only the 1602 Speght, Bentley's candidate, and the 1687, mine. These editions are very similar, and the claim of either is much, much stronger than that of any of the other contenders. But because they are slightly different, it is both possible and worth while to establish which one Blake used for the Descriptive Catalogue, primarily because this is part of the evidence needed to determine whether he owned or at least had consistent, easy access to a copy of a particular edition.

Only spelling evidence can be assembled to distinguish between the influence on Blake of 1602 and 1687 Speght. Because 1687 is much more modern in spelling than 1602, correspondence between 1687 and Blake's even more thoroughly modernized text is not significant unless Blake's quotations show archaic or otherwise unexpected spelling that appears in 1687 but not in 1602. Many words are spelled in the modern fashion in both 1687 and Blake but not in 1602; because this is what we would expect even if Blake were using 1602, this evidence is not very meaningful.

Yet four unexpected spellings suggest that Blake was not using 1602: one is a common word, one an uncommon word, and two of them archaisms that Blake never used elsewhere. The common word occurs in the Knight's remonstrances to the Monk in the Nun's Priest's Prologue:

---

279

The somewhat uncommon word in question here is "indite," which was still often spelled "endite," its medieval spelling, at the end of the eighteenth century (OED; see related words as well as "indite" itself). The word occurs in the description of the Squire; 1687 and Blake spell it in the modern way, "indite," whereas 1602 spells it medievally, "endite." Because both spellings were current in Blake's day, and because he did not use the word in surviving work, it is more likely that he would follow the spelling in his source.

The other two significant spellings might be regarded as weaker evidence than the unexpected "heare" or the unlikely "indite," because both "wastel" and "mokell" are archaisms. But both involve Blake's handling of the same letters in similar situations, and are therefore meaningful evidence against 1602: the only pattern in them is that Blake did not follow 1602. One occurs in the General Prologue and the other in the Nun's Priest's Prologue: