Chapter IV: Introduction (2)

Text size

Partly, I think, because owing to the Italianisation of the Elizabethan Drama the figures whom the dramatists drew are unreal, and live in an unreal world. They are neither Englishmen nor Italians, nor even Italianate Englishmen. I can only think of four tragedies in the whole range of the Elizabethan drama where the characters are English: Wilkins’ _Miseries of Enforced Marriage_, and _A Yorkshire Tragedy_, both founded on a recent _cause celèbre_ of one Calverly, who was executed 5 August 1605; _Arden of Faversham_, also founded on a _cause celèbre_ of the reign of Edward VI.; and Heywood’s _Woman Killed by Kindness_. These are, so far as I remember, the only English tragedies out of some hundred and fifty extant dramas deserving that name.[25] As a result of all this, the impression of English life which we get from the Elizabethan Drama is almost entirely derived from the comedies, or rather five-act farces, which alone appear to hold the mirror up to English nature. Judged by the drama, English men and English women under good Queen Bess would seem incapable of deep emotion and lofty endeavour. We know this to be untrue, but that the fact appears to be so is due to the Italianising of the more serious drama due to Painter and his school.

[Footnote 25: Curiously enough, two of the four have been
associated with Shakespeare’s name. It should be added, perhaps,
that one of the _Two Tragedies in One_ of Yarington is English.]

In fact the Italian drapery of the Elizabethan Drama disguises from us the significant light it throws upon the social history of the time. Plot can be borrowed from abroad, but characterisation must be drawn from observation of men and women around the dramatist. Whence, then comes the problem, did Webster and the rest derive their portraits of their White Devils, those imperious women who had broken free from all the conventional bonds? At first sight it might seem impossible for the gay roysterers of Alsatia to have come into personal contact with such lofty dames. But the dramatists, though Bohemians, were mostly of gentle birth, or at any rate were from the Universities, and had come in contact with the best blood of England. It is clear too from their dedications that the young noblemen of England admitted them to familiar intercourse with their families, which would include many of the _grande dames_ of Elizabeth’s Court. Elizabeth’s own character, recent revelations about Mistress Fitton, Shakespeare’s relations with his Dark Lady, all prepare for the belief that the Elizabethan dramatists had sufficient material from their own observation to fill up the outlines given by the Italian novelists.[26] The Great Oyer of Poisoning--the case of Sir Thomas Overbury and the Somersets--in James the First’s reign could vie with any Italian tale of lust and cruelty.

[Footnote 26: The frequency of scenes in which ladies of high
birth yield themselves to men of lower station is remarkable in
this connection.]

Thus in some sort the Romantic Drama was an extraneous product in English literature. Even the magnificent medium in which it is composed, the decasyllabic blank verse which the genius of Marlowe adapted to the needs of the drama, is ultimately due to the Italian Trissino, and has never kept a firm hold on English poetry. Thus both the formal elements of the Drama, plot and verse, were importations from Italy. But style and characterisation were both English of the English, and after all is said it is in style and characterisation that the greatness of the Elizabethan Drama consists. It must however be repeated that in its highest flights in the tragedies, a sense of unreality is produced by the pouring of English metal into Italian moulds.

It cannot be said that even Shakespeare escapes altogether from the ill effects of this Italianisation of all the externalities of the drama. It might plausibly be urged that by pushing unreality to its extreme you get idealisation. A still more forcible objection is that the only English play of Shakespeare’s, apart from his histories, is the one that leaves the least vivid impression on us, _The Merry Wives of Windsor_. But one cannot help feeling regret that the great master did not express more directly in his immortal verse the finer issues and deeper passions of the men and women around him. Charles Lamb, who seems to have said all that is worth saying about the dramatists in the dozen pages or so to which his notes extend, has also expressed his regret. “I am sometimes jealous,” he says, “that Shakespere laid so few of his scenes at home.” But every art has it conventions, and by the time Shakespeare began to write it was a convention of English drama that the scene of its most serious productions should be laid abroad. The convention was indeed a necessary one, for there did not exist in English any other store of plots but that offered by the inexhaustible treasury of the Italian _Novellieri_.

Having mentioned Shakespeare, it seems desirable to make an exception in his case,[27] and discuss briefly the use he made of Painter’s book and its influence on his work. On the young Shakespeare it seems to have had very great influence indeed. The second heir of his invention, _The Rape of Lucrece_, is from Painter. So too is _Romeo and Juliet_,[28] his earliest tragedy, and _All’s Well_, which under the title _Love’s Labour Won_, was his second comedy, is Painter’s _Giletta of Narbonne_ (i. 38) from Bandello.[29] I suspect too that there are two plays associated with Shakespeare’s name which contain only rough drafts left unfinished in his youthful period, and finished by another writer. At any rate it is a tolerably easy task to eliminate the Shakespearian parts of _Timon of Athens_ and _Edward III._, by ascertaining those portions which are directly due to Painter.[30] In this early period indeed it is somewhat remarkable with what closeness he followed his model. Thus some gushing critics have pointed out the subtle significance of making Romeo at first in love with Rosalind before he meets with Juliet. If it is a subtlety, it is Bandello’s, not Shakespeare’s. Again, others have attempted to defend the indefensible age of Juliet at fourteen years old, by remarking on the precocity of Italian maidens. As a matter of fact Bandello makes her eighteen years old. It is banalities like these that cause one sometimes to feel tempted to turn and rend the criticasters by some violent outburst against Shakespeare himself. There is indeed a tradition, that Matthew Arnold had things to say about Shakespeare which he dared not utter, because the British public would not stand them. But the British public has stood some very severe things about the Bible, which is even yet reckoned of higher sanctity than Shakespeare. And certainly there is as much cant about Shakespeare to be cleared away as about the Bible. However this is scarcely the place to do it. It is clear enough, however, from his usage of Painter, that Shakespeare was no more original in plot than any of his fellows, and it is only the unwise and rash who could ask for originality in plot from a dramatic artist.

[Footnote 27: The other Elizabethan dramatists who used Painter
are: Beaumont (I. xlii.; II. xvii.), Fletcher (I. xlii.; II. xvii.,
xxii.), Greene (I. lvii.), Heywood (I. ii.), Marston (I. lxvi.;
II. vii., xxiv., xxvi.), Massinger (II. xxviii.), Middleton
(I. xxxiii.), Peele (I. xl.), Shirley (I. lviii.), Webster (I. v.;
II. xxiii.). See also I. vii., xxiv., lxvi.]

[Footnote 28: Shakespeare also used Arthur Brook’s poem. On the
exact relations of the poet to his two sources see Mr. P. A.
Daniel in the New Shakespere Society’s _Originals and Analogies_,
i., and Dr. Schulze in _Jahrb. d. deutsch. Shakespeare
Gesellschaft_ xi. 218-20.]

[Footnote 29: Delius has discussed _Shakespeare’s “All Well” und
Paynter’s “Giletta von Narbonne”_ in the Jahrbuch xxii. 27-44,
in an article which is also reprinted in his _Abhandlungen_ ii.]

[Footnote 30: I hope to publish elsewhere detailed substantiation
of this contention.]

But if the use of Italian _novelle_ as the basis of plots was an evil that has given an air of unreality and extraneousness to the whole of Elizabethan Tragedy, it was, as we must repeat, a necessary evil. Suppose Painter’s work and those that followed it not to have appeared, where would the dramatists have found their plots? There was nothing in English literature to have given them plot-material, and little signs that such a set of tales could be derived from the tragedies going on in daily life. But for Painter and his school the Elizabethan Drama would have been mainly historical, and its tragedies would have been either vamped-up versions of classical tales or adaptations of contemporary _causes celèbres_.

And so we have achieved the task set before us in this Introduction to Painter’s tales. We have given the previous history of the _genre_ of literature to which they belong, and mentioned the chief _novellieri_ who were their original authors. We have given some account of Painter’s life and the circumstances under which his book appeared, and the style in which he translates. We have seen how his book was greeted on its first appearance by the adherents of the New Learning and by the opponents of the stage. The many followers in the wake of Painter have been enumerated, and some account given of their works. It has been shown how great was the influence of the whole school on the Elizabethan dramatists, and even on the greatest master among them. And having touched upon all these points, we have perhaps sufficiently introduced reader and author, who may now be left to make further acquaintance with one another.

HASLEWOOD’S

Preliminary Matter.

_OF THE TRANSLATOR._

William Painter was, probably, descended from some branch of the family of that name which resided in Kent. Except a few official dates there is little else of his personal history known. Neither the time nor place of his birth has been discovered. All the heralds in their Visitations are uniformly content with making him the root of the pedigree.[31] His liberal education is, in part, a testimony of the respectability of his family, and, it may be observed, he was enabled to make purchases of landed property in Kent, but whether from an hereditary fortune is uncertain.

[Footnote 31: The Visitation Book of 1619, in the Heralds College,
supplied Hasted with his account. There may also be consulted Harl.
MSS. 1106, 2230 and 6138.]

The materials for his life are so scanty, that a chronological notice of his Writings may be admitted, without being deemed to interrupt a narrative, of which it must form the principal contents.

He himself furnishes us with a circumstance,[32] from whence we may fix a date of some importance in ascertaining both the time of the publication and of his own appearance as an author. He translated from the Latin of Nicholas Moffan, (a soldier serving under Charles the Fifth, and taken prisoner by the Turks)[33] the relation of the Murder which Sultan Solyman caused to be perpetrated on his eldest Son Mustapha.[34] This was first dedicated to Sir William Cobham Knight, afterwards Lord Cobham, Warden of the Cinque Ports; and it is material to remark, that that nobleman succeeded to the title Sept. the 29th, 1558;[35] and from the author being a prisoner until Sept. 1555, it is not likely that the Translation was finished earlier than circa 1557-8.

[Footnote 32: Palace of Pleasure, Vol. II. p. 663.]

[Footnote 33: The translation is reprinted in the second volume.
Of the original edition there is not any notice in Herbert.]

[Footnote 34: This happened in 1552, and Moffan remained a captive
until Sept. 1555.]

[Footnote 35: Brydge’s _Peerage_, Vol. IX. p. 466. Banks’s
_Dormant Peerage_, Vol. II. p. 108.]

In 1560 the learned William Fulke, D.D. attacked some inconsistent, though popular, opinions, in a small Latin tract called “Antiprognosticon contra invtiles astrologorvm prædictiones Nostrodami, &c.” and at the back of the title are Verses,[36] by friends of the author, the first being entitled “Gulielmi Painteri ludimagistri Seuenochensis Tetrasticon.” This has been considered by Tanner as our author,[37] nor does there appear any reason for attempting to controvert that opinion; and a translation of Fulke’s Tract also seems to identify our author with the master of Sevenoaks School. The title is “Antiprognosticon, that is to saye, an Inuectiue agaynst the vayne and unprofitable predictions of the Astrologians as Nostrodame, &c. Translated out of Latine into Englishe. Whereunto is added by the author a shorte Treatise in Englyshe as well for the utter subversion of that fained arte, as well for the better understandynge of the common people, unto whom the fyrst labour semeth not sufficient. _Habet & musca splenem & formice sua bilis inest._ 1560” 12mo. At the back of the title is a sonnet by Henry Bennet: followed in the next page by Painter’s Address. On the reverse of this last page is a prose address “to his louyng frende W. F.” dated “From Seuenoke XXII of Octobre,” and signed “Your familiar frende William Paynter.”[38]

[Footnote 36: These verses were answered by another Kentish
writer. “In conuersium Palengenii Barnabæ Gogæ carmen E. Deringe
Cantiani,” prefixed to _the firste sixe bokes of the mooste
christian poet Marcellus Palingenius, called the Zodiake of Life_.
Translated by Barnabe Googe, 1561. 12mo. See Cens. Lit. Vol. II.
p. 212. Where it appears that Barnaby Googe was connected with
several Kentish families. He married a Darell. His grandmother was
Lady Hales.]

[Footnote 37: _Bibliotheca_, p. 570.]

[Footnote 38: M.S. Ashmole, 302. Mr. H. Ellis has kindly
furnished me with the above, during a late visit to Oxford, and
observes that the reference to Tanner is wrongly stated, the
article being in Ashmole’s study.]

By the regulations of the school, as grammar-master, he must have been a bachelor of arts, and approved by the Archbishop of Canterbury, and to the appointment was attached a house and salary of £50 per annum.[39]

[Footnote 39: Hasted’s _Hist. of Kent_, Vol. III. p. 98.]

Of the appointment to the School I have not been able to obtain any particulars. That situation[40] was probably left for one under government, of less labour, as he was appointed by letters patent of the 9th of Feb. in the 2d of Eliz. (1560-1) to succeed John Rogers, deceased, as Clerk of the Ordinance in the Tower, with the official stipend of eightpence per diem, which place he retained during life.

[Footnote 40: If Painter had laid in this School the foundation of
that fortune, which he afterwards appears to have realised in land,
he did no more than was done by a celebrated successor, Thomas
Farnaby, a well-known annotator on Horace, who settled his male
posterity at Keppington, in the parish of Sevenoaks, where they
remained in rank and opulence, till the late Sir Charles Farnaby,
Bart., who at one time in the present reign represented the County
of Kent, sold that seat and estate to Francis Motley Austen, Esq.,
the present owner.]

In 1562 there was a license obtained by William Jones to print “The Cytie of Cyvelite, translated into Englesshe by william paynter.” Probably this was intended for the present work, and entered in the Stationers Register as soon as the translation was commenced, to secure an undoubted copy-right to the Publisher. Neither of the stories bear such a title, nor contain incidents in character with it. The interlocutory mode of delivery, after the manner of some of the originals, might have been at first intended, and of the conversation introducing or ending some of those taken from the collection of the Queen of Navarre, a part is even now, though incongruously, retained.[41] By rejecting the gallant speeches of the courtiers and sprightly replies of the ladies, and making them unconnected stories, the idea of civility was no longer appropriate, and therefore gave place to a title equally alliterative in the adoption of the Palace of Pleasure.

[Footnote 41: George Whetstone has _An Heptameron of Civill
Discourses_, &c. 1582.]

Under this conjecture Painter was three years perfecting the Translation of the first volume of the Palace of Pleasure. He subscribes the dedicatory Epistle “nere the Tower of London the first of Januarie 1566,” using the new style, a fashion recently imported from France.[42] It must be read as 1565-6 to explain a passage in another Epistle before the second volume, where he speaks of his histories “parte whereof, two yeares past (almost) wer made commune in a former boke,” concluding “from my poore house besides the Toure of London, the fourthe of November, 1567.” The two volumes were afterwards enlarged with additional novels, as will be described under a future head, and with the completion of this task ends all knowledge of his literary productions.

[Footnote 42: In France the style was altered in 1564. _Clavis
Calendaria_. Vol I. p. 64.]

It no where appears in the Palace of Pleasure that Painter either travelled for information, or experienced, like many a genius of that age, the inclination to roam expressed by his contemporary, Churchyard,

“Of running leather were his shues,
his feete no where could reste.”[43]

[Footnote 43: _Bibliographical Miscellanies_, 1813. p. 2.]

Had he visited the Continent, it is probable, that in the course of translating so many novels, abounding with foreign manners and scenery, there would have been some observation or allusion to vouch his knowledge of the faithfulness of the representation, as, in a few instances, he has introduced events common in our own history.

He probably escaped the military fury of the age by being appointed “Clerk to the great Ordinance,” contentedly hearing the loud peals upon days of revelry, without wishing to adventure further in “a game,” which, “were subjects wise, kings would not play at.” In the possession of some competence he might prudently adjust his pursuits, out of office, to the rational and not unimportant indulgence of literature,[44] seeking in the retirement of the study, of the vales of Kent, and of domestic society, that equanimity of the passions and happiness which must ever flow from rational amusement, from contracted desires, and acts of virtue; and which the successive demands for his favourite work might serve to cheer and enliven.

[Footnote 44: This is confirmed by his making the following
observation: “When labour resteth him selfe in me, and leisure
refresheth other affairs, nothing delights more that vacant tyme
than readinge of Histories in such vulgar speache, wherein my
small knowledge taketh repast.” _Epistle Dedicatory_, Vol. II.
p. 4.]

As the founder of the family[45] his money must be presumed to have been gained by himself, and not acquired by descent. It would be pleasing to believe some part of it to have been derived from the labours of his pen. But his productions were not of sufficient magnitude to command it, although he must rank as one of the first writers who introduced novels into our language, since so widely lucrative to--printers. Yet less could there accrue a saving from his office to enable him to complete the purchases of land made at Gillingham, co. Kent.

[Footnote 45: Some of the following notices, probably, relate
to branches of the family. --William Paynter “de Vkefielde,”
possessed lands at Horsemonden, Benynden, and Merden, co. Kent. He
left three sons, Alexander, John and Robert. His will dated 25th
Feb. 24. Hen. 7th. (1509) and proved in November following.
--John P. Citizen and Freemason of London, by Will dated 26th Nov.
1532, proved 1537, gave to the children of his late brother
Richard P. late of Littleport, co. Kent, 6s. 8d. each. He was to
be buried at St. Albans, Wood Street, where on inquiry I am
informed the Registers of that period do not exist. --John P.
twice mayor of Dover, died 14th July, 1540, buried at Rainham,
same co. See Weever’s _Funeral Monuments_. --Edmonde P. Steward to
the Bishop of Ely, held a patent place, and by his will dated 7th
Sept. 14 Eliz. (1572) gave to his brother’s daughter “Johane”
forty pounds. Probably the eldest daughter of our Author.]

At what period he married cannot be stated. His wife was Dorothy Bonham of Cowling, born about the year 1537, and their six children were all nearly adults, and one married, at the time of his death in 1594. We may therefore conclude that event could not be later than 1565; and if he obtained any portion with his wife the same date allows of a disposition of it as now required.

It is certain that he purchased of Thomas and Christopher Webb the manor of East-Court in the parish of Gillingham, where his son Anthony P. resided during his father’s lifetime. He also purchased of Christopher Sampson the manor of Twidall in the same parish with its appurtenances, and a fine was levied for that purpose in Easter Term 16 Eliz. Both the manors remained in the family, and passed by direct line from the above named Anthony, through William and Allington, his son and grandson, to his great grandson Robert, who resided at Westerham, in the same county, and obtained an Act of Parliament, 7 Geo. I. “to enable him to sell the manors of Twydal and East-Court.”[46]

[Transcriber’s Note:
The family tree in the following Footnote has been rearranged for
this e-text. It is given first in “skeleton” form, showing the main
line of descent; the full text is then given in list form. In the
printed text, Joanna and her marriages are shown on a separate line,
to the left of the following generation. Allington’s wife is not
named.]

[Footnote 46: Hasted’s _History of Kent._ art. Gillingham. The
following pedigree of the family is collected from Hasted and the
Harleian MSS.

ARMS. _Gules, a chevron between three griffins’ heads erased or,
on a chief of the second an helmet sable between two pellets._
CREST. _A lizard_ (as supposed) _vert, escaping from the trunk of
an old tree, proper._

[Footnote 46a: Also spelt Paynter and Payneter; but neither used
by the above-named William Painter, if we may rely upon the
repetition of ten printed authorities.]

[Footnote 46b: That Anna was the youngest child, is doubtful,
from her father only naming her, besides Helena, as entitled to
a portion. She resided with her mother, unmarried, 1617.]

[Footnote 46c: One of these married William Wiseman, a civilian.]]

Not any part of the real Estate was affected by the will of William Painter, who appears, from its being nuncupative, to have deferred making it, until a speedy dissolution was expected. It is as follows:

“In the name of God, Amen. The nineteenth day of February in the
Year of our Lord God one thousand five hundred ninety four, in the
seven and thirtieth year of the reign of our Sovereign Lady
Elizabeth, &c. William Painter then Clerk of her Maj. Great
Ordinance of the Tower of London, being of perfect mind and memory,
declared and enterred his mind meaning and last Will and Testament
noncupative, by word of mouth in effect as followeth, viz. Being
then very sick and asked by his wife who should pay his son in law
John Hornbie the portion which was promised him with his wife in
marriage, and who should pay to his daughter Anne Painter her
portion, and to the others his children which had nothing;[47] and
whether his said wife should pay them the same, the said William
Painter answered, Yea. And being further asked whether he would give
and bequeath unto his said wife all his said goods to pay them as he
in former times used to say he would, to whom he answered also, yea.
In the presence of William Pettila, John Pennington, and Edward
Songer. Anon after in the same day confirming the premises; the said
William Painter being very sick, yet of perfect memory, William
Raynolds asking the aforesaid Mr. Painter whether he had taken order
for the disposing of his Goods to his wife and children, and whether
he had put all in his wives hands to deal and dispose of and to pay
his son Hornby his portion,[48] and whether he would make his said
wife to be his whole Executrix, or to that effect, to whose demand
the said Testator Mr. William Painter then manifesting his will and
true meaning therein willingly answered, yea, in the presence of
William Raynolds, John Hornbie and Edward Songer.”[48]

[Footnote 47: Dorothy P. (the Executrix) by her will, dated 3d
July, 1617, gave a specific legacy to her granddaughter Thomasine
Hornby, which was to be void if she sued or impleaded her
executor, relative to any gift, legacy or bequest, under the above
will; from which it may be concluded the portion of John Hornby’s
wife was never properly adjusted.]

[Footnote 48: Proved in the Prerogative Court of Canterbury,
3d Feb. 1595.]

He probably died immediately after the date of the will. Among the quarterly payments at the ordinance office at Christmas 1594 is entered to “Mr. Painter Clerke of thõdiñce xvij{lb}, xv{s}.” and upon Lady Day or New Year’s Day 1595. “To Willm̅ Painter and to S{r}. Stephen Ridleston[49] Clarke of Thordñce for the like quarter also warranted xvij{lb}. xv{s}.” He was buried in London.[50] After his death the widow retired to Gillingham, where she died Oct. 19th 1617. Æt. 80, and where she was buried.[51]

[Footnote 49: His patent, dated 21st June 1595, gives all
emoluments from the day of the death of William Painter.]

[Footnote 50: In the will of Dorothy P., already noticed, is the
following direction. “In case I dye or departe this life in the
Citie of London, to be buryed in the same parish in London where
my late loving husband Mr. William Paynter, Clerke of the great
Ordinance of the Tower of London, was buryed, and as neere to the
place where he was buryed as conuenyentlie may be, with some
memoriall there to be engraven sett vp or placed as shalbe devised
and appoynted by my executor and overseers hereafter named; yf
elsewhere then allso at their like discretions and with the like
memoriall.” Had she set up such a memorial for her husband, the
name would probably have been found in Stowe’s _Survey of London_.
It does not occur in the Registers of the Tower Chapel; Allhallows
Barking; St. Catherine’s; or Aldgate. At St. Dunstan’s, Tower
Street, the register has been destroyed, and also at St. Alban’s,
Wood Street, where there was probably a family vault, and not
being the church frequented when he lived by the Tower, the name
might have been forgotten by the widow.]

[Footnote 51: Her Will was not proved until July 1620. It is
unusually long, and the bequests are trifling. She particularizes
all her grand-children, whom, in the language then used, she calls
nephews and nieces. There had probably been some difference in the
family to occasion the following passage, whereby she bequeaths
the only memorial mentioned of our author. “Item, whereas my very
welbeloued niephue William Paynter, and I, and all my children,
nowe are and I trust in God so shall continue loving hartie and
inward frends, whereof I receyue great ioye and contentment, vnto
the which my saied neiphue, for a gentle remembraunce, I give and
bequeethe my tablet of gould with a pearle to yt which sometymes
was his graundfather’s, beyng nowe all readie in his owne keeping
and possession.” The will is subscribed with a cross, which the
feebleness of age might render necessary.]

[For some additional points throwing light on the way in which
Painter gained his fortune, see Appendix. Collier (_Extr. Stat. Reg._
ii. 107), attributes to Painter _A moorning Ditti vpon the Deceas of
Henry Earle of Arundel_, which appeared in 1579, and was signed
‘Guil. P. G.’ [= Gulielmus Painter, Gent.].--J. J.]

[Transcriber’s Note on Bibliographical Notices:

Bracketed text [ ] is in the original. Brackets are also used to
demarcate footnotes.
Text originally printed in blackletter (“Gothic”) type is shown
between *asterisks*. Single asterisks are in the original text.

For complete notes and errata, see the end of the text.]

_BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTICES._

Of the first volume of THE PALACE OF PLEASURE there were three editions, but of the second only two are known. Each of these, all uncommonly fair and perfect, through the liberal indulgence of their respective owners, are now before me; a combination which has scarcely been seen by any collector, however distinguished for ardour of pursuit and extensiveness of research, since the age of Q. Elizabeth. Their rarity in a perfect state may render an accurate description, though lengthened by minuteness, of some value to the bibliographer. The account of them will be given in their chronological order.

[Footnote 52: Herbert has this edition entered as printed by
Thomas Marshe, upon the authority of Mr. William White, p. 856. It
was licensed to Jones as “certen historyes collected out of dyuers
Ryght good and profitable authours by William Paynter.” ib. 1319.]

This title is within a narrow fancy metal border, and on the back of the leaf are the Arms of the Earl of Warwick, which fill the page. With signature * 2 commences the dedication, and at ¶ 2 is “a recapitulacion or briefe rehersal of the Arguments of euery Nouell, with the places noted, in what author euery of the same or the effect be reade and contayned.” These articles occupy four leaues each, and five more occupy the address “to the reader,” followed by the names of the Authors from whom the “nouels be selected;” making the whole introduction, with title, 14 leaves.

The nouels being lx. in number, conclude with folio 345, but there are only 289 leaves, as a castration appears of 56.[53] On the reverse of the last folio are “faultes escaped in the printing;” and besides those corrected, there are “other faultes [that] by small aduise and lesse payne may by waying the discourse be easely amended or lightly passed ouer.” A distinct leaf has the following colophon:

[Footnote 53: There is a lapse of signatures from O o. j. to
A a a. j. and of folios from 145, (misprinted 135) to 201. What
occasioned the castration it is impossible to conjecture; the
volume is certainly perfect, as the table of Contents has no
article for the omitted leaves.]

This volume is rarely discovered perfect. The above was purchased at the late sale of Col. Stanley’s library for 30l. by Sir Mark Masterman Sykes, Bt.

[Footnote 54: Herbert, 967. Entered in the Stationers’ Register
(as Mr. G. Chalmers obligingly informs me) in 1566-7, “to Nycholas
Englonde.”]

A broad metal border, of fancy pattern, adorns the title page. At signature a. ij. begins the Epistle to Sir George Howard, which the author subscribes from his “poore house besides the Toure of London, the fourthe of Nouember 1567:” and that is followed by a summary of the contents and authorities, making, with the title, 10 leaves. There are xxxiiij novels, and they end at fo. 426. Two leaves in continuation have “the conclusion,” with “divers faultes escaped in printyng,” and on the reverse of the first is the printer’s colophon.

Imprinted at London | by Henry Bynneman | for Nicholas Englande |
ANNO M.D.LXVII. | _Nouembris 8._

A copy of this volume was lately in the possession of Messrs. Arch, of Cornhill, Booksellers, with a genuine title, though differently arranged from the above, and varied in the spelling.[55] When compared, some unimportant alterations were found, as a few inverted commas on the margin of one of the pages in the last sheet, with the correction of a fault in printing more in one copy than the other, though the same edition.[56]

[Footnote 55:

Similar differences are found in the earliest stage of the English
press. Thus a copy of Caxton’s Cato, 1483, in possession of the
Duke of Devonshire, has the first line

¶ Here begynneth the prologue or prohemye of the book callid:

and in the fine copy belonging to the Library of Lee Priory, it
stands

Here begynneth the prologue or prohemye of the booke callyd.]

[Footnote 56: The second volume is undoubtedly the rarest of the
two. The industrious Langbaine does not appear to have seen it, as
in the _Account of the English Dramatic Poets_, 1691, he refers
more than once to the originals for stories contained in that
volume.]

The title is in the compartment frequently used by Marsh, having the stationers’ arms at the top, his own initials at the bottom, and pedestals of a Satyr and Diana, surmounted with flowers and snakes, on the sides. It is a reprint of the first volume without alteration, except closer types. The introduction concludes on the recto of the eleventh leaf, and on the reverse of fo. 264 is the colophon. _Jmprinted at London in Flete_ | _streate neare unto Sainct Dunstones_ | Churche by Thomas Marshe | _Anno Domini._ 1569.[57]

[Footnote 57: Dr. Farmer’s copy was Vol. I. 1569, and Vol. II.
1567. Purchased at the sale by Mr. Payne for fifteen guineas.
[Bibl. Farm. No. 5993.] The opinion Dr. Farmer entertained of
their rarity may be given in his own words: “The _Two Tomes_,
which Tom Rawlinson would have called _justa volumina_, are almost
annihilated. Mr. Ames, who searched after books of this sort with
the utmost avidity, most certainly had not seen them, when he
published his _Typographical Antiquities_, as appears from his
blunders about them: and possibly I myself might have remained in
the same predicament, had I not been favoured with a copy by my
generous friend, Mr. Lort.” _Essay on the learning of
Shakespeare._]

[Footnote 58: Hence Tanner and others have been erroneously
supposed to describe an edition in Octavo, and I have seen copies
where the margin, cropped by the intolerable plough of the binder,
might have been shown in proof of the conjecture.]

Title in same compartment as the last. The introduction is given in nine leaves, and the novels commence the folio, and end at 279. The arguments of every novel, transposed from the beginning, continue for three leaves to reverse of O o iiij, having for colophon,

Imprinted at London by | *Thomas Marshe*.

Seven novels were added to the former number, and the language improved.

Title in the compartment last described. The introduction has seven leaves, and the “conclusion” is at fo. 360.[59] The summary of nouels, which stand as part of the introduction in the former edition, follows, making four leaves after discontinuing the folio. There is no printer’s colophon, and the type throughout is smaller than any used before. The translator added one historic tale, and made material alterations in the text.

[Footnote 59: Folios 225 and 6 are repeated, and several others
are erroneously numbered.]

With respect to the date the year 1582 has been several times given, and it is doubtful if I have discovered the source of the authority. Oldys, among the manuscript notes upon Langbaine, registers “W. Painter’s Palace of Pleasure, &c. 4to. 1569, and in 2 vols. 1575, and 1582:” and Mr. Bindley, whose friendly assistance it is always gratifying to record, pointed out to my attention the catalogue of the library of the Honorable Bryan Fairfax,[60] where the volumes are increased in number, and with only a single date. It stands thus, Lot “336, Painter’s Palace of Pleasure, 3 vols.[61] B.L. 1582:” again in the Osterley catalogue, p. 87, is No. “26, Palace of Pleasure, 1582.”[62] To decide positively on such an unexpected repetition of the date made it desirable to obtain a sight of the copy.[63] That, with some difficulty, has been effected. On visiting Osterley, strange as it may appear, I found the two volumes bound in one, the same editions as those now printed from, and both wanting title pages!!

[Footnote 60: Prepared for sale by auction by Mr. Prestage, of
Savile Row, in April, 1756, and sold by private contract to Mr.
Child. It forms the principal part of the library at Osterley
Park.]

[Footnote 61: It might be expected that the third volume was
formed by adding the inferior performance of George Pettie, who
imitated our author’s title; but that was the article in the
succeeding lot. Pettie’s work is called: A petite Pallace | of
Pettie his Pleasure: | contayning many pretie Histories | by him
set foorth in comely colours | and most delightfully dis-coursed.
| _Omne tulit punctum_, | _qui miscuit vtile dulci_. | Col.
Printed at London, by R[ichard] W[atkins]. n.d. but entered in
the Stationers’ books 1576. Again by Wolfe, n.d. and other
editions 1598, 1608, and 1613. The contents of the volume are
described in an article by Mr. Utterson in the _British
Bibliographer_, Vol. II. p. 392. For an Account of the author see
Wood’s _Ath. Oxon._ by Bliss, 1813, Vol. I. col. 552.]

[Footnote 62: Class (or rather case, the library not being
classed) IX.; division 2; shelf 7; book 26. This explains the
numerals used in the Osterley Cat.]

[Footnote 63: To the unequalled store of bibliography, possessed
by the Rev. T. F. Dibdin there has lately been added a copy of the
Fairfax catalogue, priced according to the private valuation.
There may be found Caxton’s Prince Arthur rated at only fifty-five
shillings, and lot 336 (the P. of Pleasure) at _four guineas_:
undoubtedly, from the above description in the catalogue, the copy
was supposed UNIQUE.]

There is not much temerity in decisively pronouncing that there never was an edition in three volumes; that the date of 1582 was intended by Oldys to be only applied to the second volume; and that that date was founded on an erroneous conjecture. Two of these points are already disposed of, and the last can require but few words. The translation of the tale of Sultan Soliman, from the circumstance of the dedication to Sir William Cobham, as shewn in a former page, must have been finished about 1557-8, and Painter, on the reprinting, mentions that fact as “twenty-two yeares past or thereabouts,” which decides that the printing the above volume could not be later than 1580.

The Palace of Pleasure, as enlarged by the Translator, is now reprinted. The text of the latest edition of each volume has been carefully preserved; except that, instead of numberless abbreviations, every word is given at length. The character of the work did not require such minuteness, being followed for authority; and the rejecting what might seem a disfigurement of the page, it is hoped, will obtain the sanction of the reader: and it may be observed, that in the later editions many words are contracted which were first printed at length, and others given at length which were before contracted.

In the punctuation some slight alterations have been made, where the sense or uniformity materially required it.

From Earl Spencer, with that marked attention which always distinguishes the interest his Lordship takes in every literary undertaking, I received the unsolicited offer of the use of the copy belonging to the library at Althorpe. As there was the first edition of the second volume, it proved a needful and valuable acquisition, and from that source several obscure passages have been corrected, and whole sentences restored, which, in the last edition, appear to have been negligently omitted in the hurry of the press.

For the purpose of collation, Sir Mark Masterman Sykes, Bart. obligingly assisted me with his copy, purchased at the Roxburghe sale; and has since also favoured me with the first edition, to perfect the Bibliographical Notices.

Of an hundred and one novels, the whole number, the larger portion have been traced, as supposed, to their respective originals. In attempting this task, I have derived material assistance from the extensive researches made in that class of literature by Mr. Weber, who, though personally unknown, most promptly supplied the wanted information. The ingenious conjecture as to the origin of the story of Gismonde and Guiscardo, is by Mr. Singer.

It is probable that many of the stories were appropriated as soon as published by the dramatic writers to the purposes of the English Stage.[64] To the instances discovered by the indefatigable Langbaine I have made some addition.

[Footnote 64: Malone, in a note on the _Historical Account of the
English Stage_, has the following extract from Gosson’s _Plays
confuted in five Actions_, printed about the year 1580. “I may
boldly say it (says Gosson) because I have seene it, that The
_Palace of Pleasure_, _The Golden Asse_, _The Æthiopian Historie_,
_Amadis of Fraunce_, _The Round Table_, bawdie comedies in Latin,
French, Italian and Spanish, have beene _thoroughly ransackt_ to
furnish the playe-houses in London.”--_Reed’s Shakespeare,_ Vol.
III. p. 40.]

From the application of Mr. Freeling to Mr. Crewe, I obtained an inspection of the earliest records preserved in the Ordnance Office; and the research was further facilitated by the assistance of Mr. Banovin.

Sir Egerton Brydges, with his accustomed ardency to promote literary investigation, aided my endeavours to discover some trace of the translator as master of the school at Sevenoaks.

To Mr. George Chalmers and Mr. Utterson, I am indebted for some bibliographical communications, and also to the Rev. T. F. Dibdin for long extracts made from the work by Herbert, preparatory to a new edition of the _Typographical Antiquities_.

When the present edition was announced, it was intended to consist of only one hundred and fifty copies. In order, however, to meet the common hazard of the press, seven quires of each sheet were printed, making about one hundred and sixty-five saleable copies; seven were also taken off on vellum.

JOSEPH HASLEWOOD.

_Conduit Street, November 5th 1813._

[It is only necessary to add that Haslewood’s edition was in two volumes, of which the first ran to 34 (Introductory Matter) + xviii. (Dedication and Table of Contents) + 492 pages. The Second Tome, which is mostly found bound in two parts, ran to xv. (Dedication and Table of Contents) + 700 pages.

The present edition, it will be observed by the above, is really the fourth and a half edition--_i.e._, it is the fifth of the first Tome, and the fourth of the second. I have however ventured to neglect the reprint of the First Tome in 1569, and taken account only of complete editions. It follows Haslewood’s reprint page for page and line for line, except in two points. The Tables of Contents of the two Tomes have been brought together, and their literary history connected directly with the Summary of Contents. In a few cases, where Haslewood inserted passages from the first edition, I have enclosed the interpolations in square brackets. The other point of difference between Haslewood’s edition and the present is that we have divided the two Tomes into three volumes of as nearly equal size as possible. While Haslewood has been used as “copy” for the printer, it must be understood that every line has been collated with the British Museum copy of the original, and many thousands of corrections, mostly though not all of a minor kind, made in Haslewood’s text.

JOSEPH JACOBS.

4 Haselmere Road, Kilburn,
_1st Aug. 1890._]

[Transcriber’s Note on Appendix:

Letters originally printed as superscripts are shown in braces { }.
Expanded abbreviations are shown in parentheses ( ). All other
parentheses are in the original.
All slashes / are in the original.

For complete notes and errata, see the end of the text.]

Previous Next

Comments

The Palace of Pleasure, Volume 1Chapter IV: Introduction (2)

0%32 min left in chapter