Preface to Greene's Menaphon/McKerrow's Introduction

←

Preface to Greene's Menaphon
by Thomas Nashe

→

198258Preface to Greene's Menaphon — Introduction by Ronald B. McKerrowThomas Nashe

Entry in the Stationers' Register:

Editions: (1) Early:

No colophon. Quarto. Not paged.

Collation: *1, **4, A-K4, L2. (*1) Title, v. blank. *2 'To the right Worshipfull and ver-tuous Ladie, the Ladie Hales, wife to the late deceased Sir lames Hales . . .' Rom. and Ital. *2v 'To the Gentlemen Rea-ders, health.' Ital. and Rom. **'To the Gentlemen Students of both Vniuersities.' Rom. and Ital. R-T. To the Gentlemen | Students. [A3 wanting.] (A4) ' In laudem Authoris, Distichon amoris.' Ital. and Rom. (Signed) HENRIE VPCHEAR Gentleman. A4v 'Thomas Brabine Gent. in praise of the Author.' Ital. and Rom. B. 'Arcadia. (in place of R-T.) The reports of the Shepheards.' B. L., Rom., and Ital. R-T. The reports of the | Shepheards.

Signatures are in Black Letter with Arabic numerals except A, A2, which are in Roman, and B, F, I2, I3, Italic. Fourth leaves not signed.

Catch-words: *2. To 2*1. I 2*2. of 2*3. howers 2*4. hunger A1. (ma-)ny, A2. of B1. When C1. then D1. was E1. thee, F1. Meli-(certus) G1. (o-)rators H1. (renow-)med I1. I K1. is L1. stiffe (Those of sheets *, 2*, and A in Roman, those of B1, F1, in Italic, the rest in Black Letter.)

Copy used: That in the British Museum (95. b. 18. (5.)), which wants A3.

1599. [See the 'List of the Works of Robert Greene' by J. H[aslewood]. in Brydges' Censura Literaria, vol. viii, p. 386.]

I cannot trace any copy of this edition, nor have I been able to discover from whence Haslewood took the date. An imperfect copy in the Library of Mrs. Christie-Miller at Britwell Court may possibly belong to this edition, though it is of course impossible to say with certainty that it does so. It is in quarto, without pagination, and wants all before B1, and all after K3v.

Begins on B 'Greenes Arcadia | The reports of the Shepheards.' B. L., Rom., and Ital. R-T. Greenes Arcadia.

Catch-words: B1. When C1. mildlie D1. was E1. thee, F1. Meli-(certus) G1. (O-)rators H1. (renow-)med I1. might K1. is

It will be seen that in arrangement and catch-words there is a general correspondence with the edition of 1589, while the running-title is the same as that of 1610. It thus seems that it may well belong to an edition intermediate between these two, and as an imperfect copy of the work at Trinity College, Cambridge, also, apparently, of about this date, corresponds more closely with the 1610 edition, I presume that this was the earlier of the two and place it here.

1605. [See Censura Literaria, as above.]

As in the case of the edition of 1599, I can trace no copy, and cannot learn what is the ultimate authority for the date given. An imperfect copy of the work at Trinity College, Cambridge, may possibly belong to this edition, and is accordingly described here. It is a quarto, not paged, running to L4 in fours: it wants all before B1, also E4, F1.

(T.) Begins on B. 'and set before our eyes a more perfect methode of studie.' (p. 317 l. 30 in the present edition.) Rom. and Ital. R-T. To the Gentlemen | Students, (on B1v-B2 To the Gentlemen. | Students.) (B4)v verses signed 'Henry Vpcher.' C. ' Greenes Arcadia, (as R-T.) The reports of the Shepheards.' B. L., Rom., and Ital. R-T. Greenes Arcadia. (frequently with a tailed a and no stop.)

Signatures are in Black Letter, with Arabic numerals, except those of sheet B and G2, K2 and L2, in which the letter is Roman. Fourth leaves are not signed.

Catch-words: B1. vnlearned B2. deeme B3. least C1. When C2. (Vo-)taries D1. but E1. A [F1. wanting] G1. his G2v. (ring-)lea-(der) H1. ignorance H2v. warrant H3. Farewell I1. (Hes-)peria, K1. As L1. both (Those of sheet B and of C1, H3, I1, and K1 in Roman, others in Black Letter.)

It will be seen that the running-title of the Epistle in this copy resembles that of 1589 in extending over two pages instead of being repeated on every page as in 1610 and 1616, while, on the other hand, the running-title of the work itself agrees with that of 1610. In general arrangement and in catch-words T agrees with 1610, to which edition it seems altogether to be more closely related than to 1589^[1]. The readings of what remains of the Epistle agree generally with the later, but occasionally with the earlier edition^[2].

Thus, although we have hardly sufficient evidence to settle the matter positively, it is, I think, not unreasonable to conclude that in date this imperfect copy comes between 1589 and 1610, and that it should be placed after the Britwell copy in view of the closer affinity which the latter has to 1589. As to the subsidiary question of whether it is on the direct line of descent between 1589 and 1610 I can say nothing. It seems to have been the general practice to print each edition of a book from the one immediately preceding, and the great majority of the readings accord perfectly with the theory that this was done in the present instance. On the other hand, there are two or three cases^[3] of 1589 and 1610 agreeing in a reading against T, though it cannot be said that any of them are of much importance. This of course suggests that T may have been an offshoot from an edition intermediate between the others.

No colophon. Quarto. Not paged.

Collation: A-L4. (A1) Title, v. blank. A2 'TO THE GETLEMEN STVDENTS . . .' Rom. and Ital. R-T. To the Gentlemen Students. (B4)v verses signed 'Henry Vpcher.' C 'The reports of the Shepheards.' B. L., Rom., and Ital. R-T. Greenes Arcadia.

Signatures are in Black Letter, with Arabic numerals, except those of sheets A, B, and C1, E1, G2, K1, K2, L2, which have Roman letters. Fourth leaves are not signed.

Catch-words: A2. their A3. But A4. French B1. Latine, B2. (discoue-)red B3. praise, C1. When C2v. (Vo-)taries D1. but E1. A F1. (ex-)cellency G1. his G2v. (Ring-)lea-(der) H1. ignorance H2v. warrant H3. Farewell I1. (Hes-)peria K1. As L1. both (Those of sheets A, B, and of C1, E1, H3, I1, and K1 in Roman, others in Black Letter.)

Copy used: That in the British Museum (95. b. 15.).

No colophon. Quarto. Not paged.

A-L4. (A1) Title, v. blank. A2 'TO THE GENTLEMEN STVDENTS . . .' Rom. and Ital. R-T. To the Gentlemen Students. (B4)v verses signed 'Henry Vpcher.' C 'The reports of the Shepheards.' B.L., Rom., and Ital. R-T. Greenes Arcadia.

Signatures as in the edition of 1610, but E3, H3, and I are Roman.

Catch-words: As in the edition of 1610 (so far as given), except C 2V. such F I. (ex-)cellency; G 2V. (Ring-)leader H 2V. war-(rant) H 3 Fare-(well) (The last in Roman.)

Copy used: That in the British Museum (C. 40. e. 5).

1634. [See Censura Literaria, vol. viii, p. 386.]

I have been unable to trace any copy of this edition or to learn anything about it^[4].

(2) Modern Editions:

1808. Censura Literaria . . . [Edited by (Sir) S. E. Brydges] . . . London : for Longman, Hurst, &c. 1805-9. Vol. vii, pp. 152-69.

In the original spelling. Edited by J. H[aslewood]. from the edition of 1616. There are a few notes. The Epistle alone is printed in full, some account of the rest of the work, with extracts, being given at pp. 265-72.

1815. Archaica. Containing a Reprint of Scarce Old English Prose Tracts. With Prefaces ... by Sir E. Brydges, . . . London : Longman, Hurst, &c. Vol. i, (Part the Second).

In modern spelling from the edition of 1616. The whole work.

1878. The English Scholar's Library of Old and Modern Works. No. 12. Robert Greene, M.A. Menaphon.

In the original spelling. Edited by Prof. E, Arber from the edition of 1589. The copy used is not stated. The part of the Epistle which is wanting in the copy of -89 at the British Museum corresponds closely with -10 and may be from this edition. A Limited Library Edition of the same was published in 1880, and the work has since been reissued by Messrs. Constable.

1881-3. The Life and Complete Works ... of Robert Greene . . . edited by A. B. Grosart. Vol. vi, pp. 9-28.

In the original spelling, from the copy of -89 in the British Museum, except the last page of the Epistle, which is apparently from -10.

1883-4 (Gro.) The Complete Works of Thomas Nashe . . . edited by A. B. Grosart. Vol. i, pp. xix-xxxviii.

The Epistle alone, reprinted from the Works of Greene.

1904 (Smith) Elizabethan Critical Essays . . . edited . . . by G. Gregory Smith. Oxford : at the Clarendon Press. Vol. i, pp. 307-320.

In the original spelling, with modern punctuation, from the copy of -89 at the British Museum, the part there wanting being supplied from -10. The Epistle alone. There are six pages of notes.

1905. (The present edition.)

From the copy of -10 at the British Museum with collations from -89 and from the imperfect copy at Trinity College, Cambridge. The edition of 1616 has also been collated in every case where a difference is recorded between the others, but variations of reading found in this edition alone are generally ignored. The text of the Epistle, at least as printed in 1589, being unusually free from corruption, it has seldom been necessary to give readings from modern editions, which introduce few, if any, emendations.

Note on the Editions:

The question of the date of the original publication of Menaphon will be referred to in the notes, but I may say here that there seems to me to be little, if any, reason for thinking it to have appeared earlier than 1589; while even if there was, as has been supposed, an edition in 1587, it is unlikely that it contained the Epistle by Nashe, and certain that it did not contain it in the form in which we now have it^[5]. As in any case no copy is known to exist it is not necessary to discuss the point further at present.

Of the six editions which are stated to have appeared from 1589 to 1634 inclusive^[6], three, namely those of 1589, 1610, and 1616, are represented by copies in the British Museum, but of the supposed editions of 1599, 1605, and 1634 I have been able to learn nothing. There are however at Britwell Court and at Trinity College, Cambridge, two imperfect copies neither of which belongs to an edition otherwise known to me. These I have already described, giving at the same time my reasons for believing that they should be placed between those of 1589 and 1610. They may thus represent the editions of 1599 and 1605, though it is of course impossible to say that they certainly do so, for we have no means of knowing that the traditional list of editions, even if accurate so far as it goes, is complete.

The editions of 1610 and 1616 differ from that of 1589 in the following respects:

(1) The title is altered and part of the wording of the title-page is omitted.

(2) The dedication and the author's epistle to the gentlemen readers are omitted, as are also the verses by 'Thomas Brabine.'

(3) There are a few variations in reading.

The change in title, that is, the addition of the head-title of the work itself, namely 'Arcadia,' to the original 'Menaphon,' may, I think, be attributed to a desire to profit by the popularity of Sidney's Arcadia, which was first published in 1590, though it had no doubt been known in literary circles many years before. The omission of part of the wording of the title-page was perhaps due to the printer's wish to use his device, for which the full wording of the original would hardly have given room, while that of the dedication, epistle to the readers, and the verses by 'Brabine' may have been dictated by the necessity or convenience of getting the preliminary matter into a certain fixed number of pages, this occupying in the later editions only eight leaves as against ten in the earlier one.

It is, I think, impossible to claim that such changes as these show any revision on the part of the author or of any person instructed by him: they may well be due to the printer alone. But when we come to the work itself, or rather to Nashe's preface to it, with which alone I am concerned, we find certain variations of reading, which, though in no case are they of much importance, possibly indicate a certain amount of deliberate correction. Whether they actually do so or not is a question which must be answered, or at least discussed, before it can be decided which edition should form the basis of a reprint.

It is frequently a difficult matter to say whether a change in the text of a book is accidental or not and whether, if intentional, it is due to the author or to the printer, and it is especially difficult when the changes are few in number as here, and when the work, at least in the later editions, is far from carefully printed. In the present case the problem is complicated by the fact that we possess no perfect copy of an edition which shows these variations until some ten years after the author's death. If we had the intermediate editions and could say at what date the changes first appeared it would obviously be of great assistance in deciding the point, for if they could be found in an edition issued when the author was still living, say in that of 1599, it would add probability to the theory that he was responsible for them : if they appeared in the first edition published after his death, we should have less ground for connecting them with him, though it could indeed be argued that the printer might have used a copy of a former edition corrected by him ; while if they did not appear until still later we could say, with some approach to certainty, that he had nothing to do with them.

The first of the two imperfect copies which I place between 1589 and 1610 gives us no help at all in the matter, for in it the Epistle of Nashe is entirely wanting. The second, if I am right in the position which I assign to it, supports to some extent the contention that these changes in the later editions are due to revision on the part of the author, for it shows that the corrections, or some of them at least, were earlier than 1610. Unfortunately however all the more important variations occur in the early part of the Epistle, which is wanting in this copy.

We are thus driven to rely chiefly on the nature of the changes themselves. These can of course be seen in the collation-notes, but it seems useful to call attention here to some of the more important. First come two cases of words added^[7]:

P. 312, ll. 7-8 deepe read Grammarians -89: deep read Schoolemen or Grammarians -10.
P. 314, ll. 13-4 vnexperienst punies -89: vnexperienced and illiterated Punies -10.

Besides these there are a few other changes which can hardly be considered as accidental:

P. 313, l. 19 indifference -89: difference -10.
P. 315, l. 10 oppose -89: expose -10.
P. 318, ll. 18-9 be -89: had beene T, -10.
P. 318, l. 19 take -89: tooke T, -10.
P. 331, l. 15 in whole or in a parte -89: in whole or in part T, -10.

The correction of colona to colonia at p. 317, l. 23 is balanced by the curious change of tandem aliquando at p. 312, l. 31 to the apparently meaningless tanquam aliquando, a change which it seems equally difficult to attribute to a person ignorant of Latin and to one acquainted with it.

I cannot maintain that the text gains much, if it gains at all, by these changes, though 'difference' at least seems certainly to be an improvement upon the word for which it was substituted, but to assume that they are merely compositors' corrections seems somewhat daring. It is surely unlikely that under ordinary circumstances a printer would insert words into a text where there is no apparent omission—words, that is, which make sense and are not traceable to his eye catching some other phrase of the copy. Such insertions must, it seems to me, be considered as deliberate corrections, and, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, must be attributed to the author of the work. In this particular case it might indeed be suggested that, the piece in question being merely a preface, it is not impossible that the author of the book itself, in touching up his work preparatory to a new edition, might have made a few slight changes even in a part which was not his own, but we must remember that Greene died three years after the publication of the first edition, while Nashe lived some eight years longer, and further that so far as we know no second edition was published in Greene's lifetime nor for several years after his death.

All things considered it seemed better to print from the edition of 1610, in the absence of those of 1599 and 1605. At any rate this may be said in favour of so doing, that, while there are already two easily accessible reprints of the edition of 1589, that of 1610 has never been made the basis of a text.

I feel that I owe some apology to readers for the length to which this introductory note has extended, especially as the part of Menaphon with which I have to do is itself short and but a small portion of the whole, and as, after all, I have not been able to arrive at any very definite results. I can only plead in excuse that there were questions which it was impossible to discuss without treating the work as a whole, and that the bibliography of Menaphon is, owing to the great rarity of copies of the early editions, by no means easy to work out, and, so far as I am aware, no attempt had ever been made to deal with it. I was obliged for my own satisfaction to go into the matter in some detail, and having done so and arrived at certain conclusions, I was unwilling to state these without, so far as was possible, giving others the means of criticizing them.

Notes

↑ It may be remarked that the editions of 1610 and 1616, so far at least as the Epistle is concerned, agree page for page and generally line for line, while T also generally agrees with them line for line, but not page for page. It might be expected that from the cases in which the editions disagree in this respect we might deduce something as to their relationship, but it seems impossible to do so. The fact that in the concluding paragraph the line-endings of T agree with 1616 against 1610 might suggest that T is really 1634, but this is more than balanced by cases in which T agrees with 1610 against 1616. The edition of 1589 is not divided into paragraphs, and therefore naturally differs in line-division from the later ones.
↑ The readings which seem of most importance in determining the relationship of the editions are those noted at p. 318, ll. 18, 19, 20, p. 320, ll. 2, 6, 7, II, p. 322,11. 1-2, 27, p. 324, 1. 10.
↑ See the collation notes on p. 321, ll. 22, 23, p. 322, l. 8.
↑ The statement in Mr. Hazlitt's Handbook, p. 238, that it was reprinted in Archaica is an error, if, indeed, it is intended to refer to this edition, as it appears to do, and not to the work generally.
↑ See J. Petheram's Introduction to his reprint of An Almond for a Parrat, 1846, pp. iv-viii. The chief arguments against the Epistle having appeared in 1587 are the references to ' Martin' and to ' Tho. Newton, with his Leyland ' (cf. p. 315, l. 2, and p. 320, l. 28). The entry in the Stationers' Register in 1589 is by itself almost conclusive.
↑ The same list of editions, namely 1587, 1589, 1599, 1605, 1610, 1616, and 1634, in some cases with doubt or denial of the first, is given by J. Haslewood in the Censura Literaria, vol. viii, p. 386, in A. à Wood's Fasti Oxon., ed. Bliss, i. 247, Watt's Bibl. Brit., Lowndes' Bibl. Manual, Mr. Hazlitt's Handbook, Greene, Dr. Wks., ed. Dyce, The Dictionary of National Biography, and elsewhere. In no case does it appear that the writer had himself seen the editions of 1599, 1605, or 1634, and I am quite unable to learn on what authority they rest in the first instance.
↑ The insertion of the word 'all' at p. 312, 1. 13 is, I think, probably accidental.

[1] It may be remarked that the editions of 1610 and 1616, so far at least as the Epistle is concerned, agree page for page and generally line for line, while T also generally agrees with them line for line, but not page for page. It might be expected that from the cases in which the editions disagree in this respect we might deduce something as to their relationship, but it seems impossible to do so. The fact that in the concluding paragraph the line-endings of T agree with 1616 against 1610 might suggest that T is really 1634, but this is more than balanced by cases in which T agrees with 1610 against 1616. The edition of 1589 is not divided into paragraphs, and therefore naturally differs in line-division from the later ones.

[2] The readings which seem of most importance in determining the relationship of the editions are those noted at p. 318, ll. 18, 19, 20, p. 320, ll. 2, 6, 7, II, p. 322,11. 1-2, 27, p. 324, 1. 10.

[3] See the collation notes on p. 321, ll. 22, 23, p. 322, l. 8.

[4] The statement in Mr. Hazlitt's Handbook, p. 238, that it was reprinted in Archaica is an error, if, indeed, it is intended to refer to this edition, as it appears to do, and not to the work generally.

[5] See J. Petheram's Introduction to his reprint of An Almond for a Parrat, 1846, pp. iv-viii. The chief arguments against the Epistle having appeared in 1587 are the references to ' Martin' and to ' Tho. Newton, with his Leyland ' (cf. p. 315, l. 2, and p. 320, l. 28). The entry in the Stationers' Register in 1589 is by itself almost conclusive.

[6] The same list of editions, namely 1587, 1589, 1599, 1605, 1610, 1616, and 1634, in some cases with doubt or denial of the first, is given by J. Haslewood in the Censura Literaria, vol. viii, p. 386, in A. à Wood's Fasti Oxon., ed. Bliss, i. 247, Watt's Bibl. Brit., Lowndes' Bibl. Manual, Mr. Hazlitt's Handbook, Greene, Dr. Wks., ed. Dyce, The Dictionary of National Biography, and elsewhere. In no case does it appear that the writer had himself seen the editions of 1599, 1605, or 1634, and I am quite unable to learn on what authority they rest in the first instance.

[7] The insertion of the word 'all' at p. 312, 1. 13 is, I think, probably accidental.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]