SIDNEY'S 'ARCADIA' And first, I will quote a part of Sir Philip's dedication of the 'Arcadia' to his sister, as it appears in the first printed edition (1590). 'Here now have you (most deare, and most worthy to be most deare Lady) this idle worke of mine: which I fear (like the Spiders webbe) will be thought fitter to be swept away, then worn to any other purpose. For my part, in very trueth (as the cruel fathers among the Greekes were wont to doo to the babes they would not foster), I could well find in my harte, to cast out in some desert of forgetfulnes this child, which I am loath to father. But you desired me to doo it, and your desire to my hart is an absolute commandement. Now, it is da nelie for you, onely to you: if you keep it to yourselfe, to such friendes who will weigh errors in the ballaunce of pod will, I hope for the father's sake, it will be pardond, perchance made much of, though in itselfe it have deformities. For indeede, for severer eyes it is not, being but a trifle, and that triflinglie handled. Your deare selfe can best witnes the maner, being done in loose sheetes of paper, most of it in your presence, the rest, by sheetes, sent unto you, as fast as they were done.' A good deal might be said about this dedication; at present I will only draw the reader's attention to the fact that Sir Philip in it speaks of his work as if it were a finished production. He says, 'Now, it is done onely for you, onely to you. The word 'done' could hardly have been used by the author with reference to the unfinished revision of the book which was first published in 1590, and afterwards in a more complete, though still imperfect form, in 1593 and onwards; and therefore I conclude that fers to the work in its original form. dney died on October 17, 1586. During his lifetime copies of the Arcadia' in its first form had been nated; and immediately after his death one of the ders or publishers of the time attempted to bring out dition, which would have been printed from one of the manuscripts. We learn this from a letter (pred in the State Paper Office) from Fulke Greville, must have been a good many more originally, since manuscripts are three copies at least are still in existence, it may be inferred that ore liable to destruction than printed books. Of the original quarto kam to exist. A copy was sold at Sotheby's a short time since for 4501. Art. 4.-NEW LIGHT UPON SIR 'ARCADIA.' sidney's father Morsed November theder in Poles Churc ther was one in hand t dia, asking me yf it wer or any other of his frendes then he advised me to give archbishope or doctor Cosen peruse to that end. FROM its first publication in nearly every in some way speare ow author; been su Eliz wh r In 2 his memory unto you, but yeat ir ction of that old one, done 4 or 5 year trust with me, wherof ther is no mor for I have sent my lady, your daughter ar to be printed then the first, which is sc withstanding even that to be amended by a vit downe under his own hand, how and why; sc especially the care of printing of it, is to deliberation.' cy respects, With more m the above passages it is clear that there was an Arcadia' which was common in manuscript form;| the author had been engaged, perhaps up to the time that he valued it so much as to leave it in the care of one when he went to the Netherlands, in revising it; and to the manner in which it was to be dealt with. It is of his most intimate friends, with particular directions as also clear on what account and in what manner the publication of the original version of the romance was prevented. It may also be inferred from some of Lord Brooke's expressions that, though Sir Philip may not have thought the original version worthy of publication, it was yet his intention to publish it in its revised form. It is strange, at any rate, that he should have spent so much time and labour over the work if he did not intend eventually to publish it. 6 The William Ponsonby who was, as appears from the above letter, instrumental in stopping the publication of an unauthorised edition of the Arcadia,' and whom Lord Brooke describes as 'a booke bynder,' was really a publisher of good repute, who probably hoped himself to obtain the privilege of publishing an authorised edition of the work. Somewhat less than two years later, as appears from an entry in the Stationers' Registers, om the tion n Lond pub self to edition ter, as isters rised to publish the romance; but it 3 S. published by Ponsonby, appears K we cannot be certain; but aming of the Chapters was not of Sir Whether Lord Brooke was or was not the actual editor later form, consists. It is clear that the first (1590) edition of the romance not issued with the concurrence or assistance of the This is proved by a passage in the dedication of a manuscript transla part trator, addressing Lord Brooke, speaks of the Arcadia,' 'weh by yor Montemayor's 'Diana' by Thomas Wilson, in which the Poetry and Pastoral Drama,' p. 148. noble vertue the world so hapily enjoyes.' See Mr W. W. Greg's 'Pastoral Lord Brooke, to Sir Francis Walsingham, Sidney's fatherin-law. From this letter, which is endorsed 'November, 1586,' I quote the following passages: 'S', this day, one Ponsonby, a booke bynder in Poles Church yard, came to me and told me that ther was one in hand to print Sr Philip Sydney's old arcadia, asking me yf it were done with your honors consent, or any other of his frendes? I told him, to my knowledge, no: then he advised me to give warninge of it, either to the archbishope or doctor Cosen, who have, as he says, a copy to peruse to that end. 'Sr I am loth to renew his memory unto you, but yeat in this I must presume; for I have sent my lady, your daughter, at her request, a correction of that old one, done 4 or 5 years sinse, which he left in trust with me, wherof ther is no more copies, and fitter to be printed then the first, which is so common: notwithstanding even that to be amended by a direction sett downe under his own hand, how and why; so as in many respects, especially the care of printing of it, is to be don with more deliberation.' From the above passages it is clear that there was an 'old Arcadia' which was common in manuscript form; that the author had been engaged, perhaps up to the time when he went to the Netherlands, in revising it; and that he valued it so much as to leave it in the care of one of his most intimate friends, with particular directions as to the manner in which it was to be dealt with. It is also clear on what account and in what manner the publication of the original version of the romance was prevented. It may also be inferred from some of Lord Brooke's expressions that, though Sir Philip may not have thought the original version worthy of publication, it was yet his intention to publish it in its revised form. It is strange, at any rate, that he should have spent so much time and labour over the work if he did not intend eventually to publish it. The William Ponsonby who was, as appears from the above letter, instrumental in stopping the publication of an unauthorised edition of the Arcadia,' and whom Lord Brooke describes as 'a booke bynder,' was really a publisher of good repute, who probably hoped himself to obtain the privilege of publishing an authorised edition of the work. Somewhat less than two years later, as appears from an entry in the Stationers' Registers, It is muet tend the on of Lord pub If to tion Ponsonby was authorised to publish the romance; but it The Arcadia, as it was published by Ponsonby, appears to have been issued with the concurrence, and probably under the superintendence of Lord Brooke.* Whether he was the 'overseer of the print' who prefixed the following notice to the work we cannot be certain; but it seems likely that he was. The drision and summing of the Chapters was not of Sir Philip Sidner's dooing, but adventured by the over seer of the print, for the more ease of the Readers. He therfore submits himselfe to their judgement, and if his labour answere not the worthines of the booke, desireth pardon for it. As also If any defect be found in the Eclogues, which although they were of Sir Philip Sidnei's writing, yet were they not perused by him, but left till the work had bene finished, that then choise should have bene made, which should have bene taken, and in what manner brought in. At this time they have bene chosen and disposed as the over-seer thought best.' Whether Lord Brooke was or was not the actual editor of the work, we may, I think, at least conclude that it was printed from the manuscript which the author had entrusted to his friend; and that the directions with the whole I am inclined to think that this first edition, which it was accompanied were duly attended to. Upon though it breaks off in the middle of the third book, and is therefore less complete than the later folio editions, gives us, so far as it goes, quite as authoritative a text as the second edition, that of 1593, which was published der the direction of the Countess of Pembroke. In the ter, the division into chapters and the explanatory beings which had appeared in Lord Brooke's edition omitted. This was, I think, unfortunate, for they very material use to the reader in working his through the labyrinth of stories of which the work, Were of later form, consists. his clear that the first (1590) edition of the romance not issued with the concurrence or assistance of the 'This is proved by a passage in the dedication of a manuscript transla tor, addressing Lord Brooke, speaks of the Arcadia,' 'weh by yor part of Montemayor's 'Diana' by Thomas Wilson, in which the Bertue the world so hapily enjoyes.' See Mr W. W. Greg's 'Pastoral Poetry and Pastoral Drama,' p. 148. |