Showing 3 results

University Press, Oxford.—Agrees that special arrangements will have to be made for printing Nashe’s ‘Choise of Valentines’.

(With an envelope.)

—————

Transcript

University Press, Oxford
April 10, 1905.

R. B. McKerrow, Esq.

Dear Mr. McKerrow,

Nashe Vol. III.

I gather from your memo. of March 24, that you propose to call upon me about the “Choosing of Valentines”, {1} on account of the character of which, as you say, some special arrangements will have to be made. I would like to know, do you propose to put this poem in the work without comment? Or do you propose to issue some notice with it, saying that it is optional to have it or not to have it; or in what way do you decide to deal with it? I shall want some special guarantee in regard to this poem which is not of a nature to be issued as if it were ordinary literature.

Are you able to say when you will call? It ought to be a day when I am not in London,—that is, it ought not to be next Thursday; {2} and also not on any Saturday.

Yours faithfully,
Horace Hart

[Direction on envelope:] R. B. McKerrow, Esq., 30, Manchester Street, Manchester Square, LONDON, W.

[On the back of the envelope are the following notes, presumably by McKerrow:]
Passages omitted in C. Agrippa
Schelhorn Amoenitates Litterariæ 1725 ii. 510–25
See Delrio Disq. Magic.
Thevet Portraits des hommes illustres 1584 {3}
Thomas Block {4}

—————

Typed, except the signature, a few corrections, and the notes on the envelope. The envelope was postmarked at Oxford at 8.30 p.m. on 10 April 1905, and at London at 3 a.m. the next day.

{1} An erotic poem by Nashe, also known as ‘The Choise of Valentines’ . See Works of Nashe, iii. 397–416.

{2} 13th.

{3} The books referred to are Amoenitates Literariae, by Johann George Schelhorn (1725); Disquisitiones Magicae, by Martin Del Rio (1608); and Les vrais pourtraits et vies des hommes illustres, by André Thevet (1584).

{4} This name, the reading of which is uncertain, is at right angles to the other notes.

Transcript

Some Notes on Nashe.

Since the completion in 1910 of my edition of Nashe, I have, naturally enough, come across a certain number of things bearing upon his work which, had I known of them earlier, I should have incorporated into my notes. I have at times thought of printing these, but doubted whether the interest of them—scrappy as they are—was sufficient. Of late, however, several scholars have published additional notes on Nashe—the most important contribution known to me being Professor W. P. Mustard’s in the December number of Modern Language Notes, {1} and it may therefore be as well that I should summarize those things that I have noted—I omit of course those that, so far as I know, have been printed already by others.

1. Among books used by Nashe in writing “The Anatomy of Absurdity” was undoubtedly L. Lloyd’s Pilgrimage of Princes [1573]. This book itself borrows largely from Agrippa’s Vanity of Arts & Sciences and is itself used by Brian Milbanke in his Philotimus, from both of which works Nashe, as I showed, borrowed much material. I failed however to notice that though certain of Nashe’s borrowings such as the passage about the ‘Massagets’ (16. 3-5) are taken from Lloyd (sig Ee2) by way of Milbanke, there is a good deal that is taken from him direct. Thus, the whole of Nashe’s examples of frugality in diet (I. 38. 20–39. 22) are from the Pilgrimage of Princes as follows. {2}

Diogenes (38. 20-2). P of P. N4v (misprinted M4v) foot
Plato ([blank]). [P of P.] O1 top.
Porus. [P of P.] N2v. ll. 11-2.
Agesilaus (ll. 25-35). [P of P.] N2 ll 2-15.
Constantius. N2 ll. 20-2.
The Priests of Ægipt. N3v. ll 24-5.
The Persians. N4v ll. 11-12.
In Rhodes … N4v ll. 13-15.
Zaleucus law. [mentioned on N2, but not quite as here]
The Matrons & Ladies of Rome … Eg. Mæcenius … Censoriall Cato (39 ll. 8-22). N4 l 28 to N4v l. 7.

The borrowings are in Nashe’s usual manner practically word for word.

Nash may also have used the Pilgrimage of Princes elsewhere in the Anatomy, but I have failed to find indisputable evidence. It may, however, be noted that of the less virtuous women discussed on p. 11, eight are mentioned on sigs O2v–O3 and one, ‘Laena’ on P4v. Of the mysterious ‘Architumna’ there is still no trace. If Nashe really followed Lloyd here she ought to be ‘Virginia’ but I question if it could be a possible misreading.

—————

The square brackets are original, except where indicated below. The abbreviation ‘v’ for ‘verso’ is superscript throughout.

{1} W. P. Mustard, ‘Notes on Thomas Nashe’s Works’, Modern Language Notes, xl (1925). 469–76. The expression ‘December number’ appears to date this note to the year 1926.

{2} The references to signatures in the following entries are arranged in a column. The title ‘P of P.’, which appears before the first, was evidently intended to refer to all the succeeding references, but ditto marks, substituted above by ‘[P of P.]’ were only added for three entries. A few full stops have been added to separate the initial words from the references.

31 Endcliffe Road, Sheffield.—Is indignant at the Athenaeum’s treatment of McKerrow’s Works of Nashe. A copy of Agrippa’s De Vanitate is for sale.

(Dated 18 Sept. With an envelope, postmarked 18 Sept. 1910.)

—————

Transcript

31 Endcliffe Rise Rd. Sheffield
18 Sep

Dear McKerrow,

I must express my indignation at the way in which the Athenæum has treated Nashe. {1} It is beyond anything.

I suppose you dont want a copy of Agrippa de Vanitate &c? {2} There is one to be had here for
10/–.

Ever yours
G. C. Moore Smith

[Direction on envelope:] R. B. McKerrow Esq | 4 Phoenix Lodge Mansions | Brook Green | Hammersmith | London W

—————

The envelope was postmarked at Sheffield at 8.15 p.m. on 18 September 1910.

{1} The reference is to a review of the fifth volume of the Works of Nashe in the Athenaeum of 17 September (p. 336), in which McKerrow was criticised, among other things, for his want of ‘literary craftsmanship’.

{2} Cornelius Agrippa’s De incertitudine et vanitate scientiarum atque artium declamatio invectiva, first published in 1530 and frequently reprinted. There does not appear to have been a collected edition of Agrippa’s works, so perhaps the ‘&c’ indicates that the book was bound up with others.