[In the following essay, Davis analyzes Sandys's intent in writing his paraphrase of the Song of Solomon, the manner of and motive for circulating the poem in manuscript, the reason for the delay in its publication, and the probability that there was a lost additional printed version of the poem.]

The ten known printed and manuscript texts of George Sandys' A Paraphrase upon the Song of Solomon (1641) present several problems regarding this particular poem and offer interesting suggestions as to seventeenth-century custom in the circulation of unpublished verse. Among the matters to be considered are the author's intent as to text, the manner of and motive for circulating the poem in manuscript, the reasons for the delay in printing this particular portion of a metrical paraphrase of the Scriptures, and the probability of a lost additional printed version of the poem. Materials for study include three printed and seven manuscript versions, no two of them identical even in phrase, all differing widely in spelling and punctuation. One manuscript text differs so markedly from all the others as to pose a special problem.

To understand what may be involved one must glance back a few years in Sandys' literary career. In the 1630's he was a member of the Court circle, perhaps a Gentleman of the Privy Chamber. In 1636 he had published, under the direct encouragement of his patron Charles I, A Paraphrase upon the Psalmes of David and upon the Hymnes Dispersed through the Old and New Testaments, a modest little octavo with dedicatory poems to the King and Queen. Two years later, in 1638 (colophon 1637), in a small but elegant folio, Sandys enlarged the Psalmes into A Paraphrase upon the Divine Poems, with a prose dedication to the King and a poem to the Queen and with musical settings for the Psalmes portion by Henry Lawes. The new edition contained, in addition to the materials of the 1636 edition, metrical versions of Job, Ecclesiastes, and Jeremiah. In other words, all the generally considered metrical portions of the Bible other than “The Song of Solomon.”¹

The folio was also rich in commendatory poems from Sandys' friends. One of these effusions, by Sidney Godolphin, indicates that the Solomon had been composed with the rest. In summarizing the content of Sandys' volume, Godolphin refers first to the works of David and Solomon which are printed, then to what has been omitted, with marginal comment by the writer or by Sandys himself.

Iob, moves Amazement, David moves our Teares;
His Royall Sonne, a sad Apparell weares
Of Language, and perswades to Pious Feares.
The Passions of the First rise great and high,
But Salomon a lesse concerned Eye
Casting on all the world, flowes equally.
Not in that ardent course, as where He woes
The Sacred Spouse, and her chaste Love pursues,
With brighter flames, and with a higher Muse.
This Work had been proportion'd to our Sight,
Had you but known with some allay to Write,
And not preserved your Authors Strength and Light.
But you so crust those Odors, so dispense
Those rich perfumes, you make them too intense
And such (alas) as too much please our Sense.
We fitter are for sorrows, then such love(2)

Perhaps some one, or some group, objected to Sandys' poetizing of the Solomon as too sensual or at least too sensuous to appear in a volume to be used in private devotionals.³ One must keep in mind too that the printed poems were intended to please the King; indeed, this was one of the few books in which he delighted to read years later when he was a prisoner in the Isle of Wight.⁴ The objector, if there was one, was probably the King, though it may have been the Queen or Archbishop Laud, or all three. There are printed dedicatory verses to the Queen in all copies of the 1638 Paraphrase, and a manuscript poem to Laud in at least one.⁵ Or since there are dedicatory verses “To the Prince” in all copies and there is extant a copy which belonged to him, it may have been in some sort of deference to the future Charles II's tender years that these erotic and exotic lines were omitted.⁶

Within three years, however, A Paraphrase upon the Song of Solomon (1641) was in print in a small quarto. The little eighteen-leaved book was printed in London by John Legatt, who had also done the 1638 folio. It bears Sandys' initials and Cum Privilegio Regiæ Majestatis on the title page, and a full-page prose dedication to the King just within, beginning

SIR,

I presume to invite you to these sacred Nuptials: the Epithalamium sung by a crowned Muse. Never was there Paire of so divine a Beautie, nor united in such harmonious Affections: and infinitely he deserved her love; redeemed at so dear a Price, and inricht with so invaluable a Dowry.

Sandys concludes by begging pardon for “thus long continuing to make my Allay currant by the impression of your Name” (all his works had been dedicated to Charles) and declaring that he had now “broken up [his] ruinous Vessell” (that is, that this was his last poem).

This emphasis on the Solomon as a marriage hymn would suggest that Sandys was honoring both their Majesties, though only the King is here named. W. Carew Hazlitt describes another quarto printed at Oxford in 1641 “and dedicated to the Queenes Majesty.”⁷ Though no copy of this edition is known, there is every reason to believe that there was such an edition. What does remain extant is a 1642 quarto published in London “And Dedicated to the Queenes Majesty.”⁸ This edition, printed on inferior paper and not containing a dedicatory poem or prose piece of any kind despite the words on the title page, may have been pirated. Since it differs in phrase and word and punctuation from the 1641 London and contains notice of dedication to the Queen, it may have been set up from the lost Oxford 1641.

The only other printed appearance of the Solomon during the seventeenth century was in the 1676 edition of A Paraphrase upon the Divine Poems. Here it appears in its Biblically proper place between Ecclesiastes and Jeremiah, with a separate title, the same Imprimatur and prose dedication to the King as the London 1641, but with an added dedicatory poem “To the Queen.” This poem is in the tone one might expect. If Sandys really had to fight to get the Solomon published, such allusions as these to the regal, divine, and marriage-hymn qualities of his poem were strategic maneuvers in the battle.

Chast Nymph, you who extracted are,
From that swift Thunderbolt of War;
Whose Innocence, & Meekness prove
An Eagle may beget a Dove;
In this clear Mirror you may find,
The Image of your own fair Mind;
With each Attractive Excellence,
Which Feasts the more refined sense;
The Crowned Muse from Heaven inspir'd
With such rich Beauties hath attir'd
The Sacred Spouse: for what below
The sun, could more perfection show?(9)

Though the printer may therefore have had both the London and Oxford editions of 1641 before him, the text of the 1676 is remarkably like that of the London 1641. In other words, it is much closer to the London 1641 than to the London 1642, which as has been noted may derive from the missing Oxford 1641.

So much can be seen of the relationship between the three extant printed versions of the Solomon. Some of the variants in text will be noted below. But at this point must be considered the seven known manuscript versions of the Solomon, for their origins and texts are related to those of the printed versions. About the only things that all seven appear to have in common are (1) that they are in earlier seventeenth-century hands (that is, that they were all probably written or copied between 1637 and 1643, for reasons to be indicated); and (2), that no one of them is in the author's autograph. Two of the manuscripts are separately “gathered” among papers in the Bodleian Library. Two others repose in the British Museum, one in a “Parliamentary Commonplace Book.” And the other three, most interestingly, are bound into copies of the 1638 A Paraphrase upon the Divine Poems now in the United States.

Before proceeding to a comparison of texts, one should know something of the history and physical form of each of these manuscripts. One of those in the Bodleian, MS. e. Museo 201 (foll. iii, 1-13), in a clearly legible earlier seventeenth-century hand, appears on sheets perhaps intended to be bound into a 4° or folio, though there is no indication that this was ever done. The second Bodleian, MS. Rawl. poet. 153 (foll. 1-7^v), in a not entirely legible text because of the bad condition of the sheets, comes at the beginning of a poetical collection in which are included verses on the Civil War, and others related to Oxford University during the reigns of James I and Charles I. One British Museum copy, MS. Sloane 1009 (foll. 376^b-385), in an “old-fashioned,” difficult, seventeenth-century hand, has headings in roman type form, and introduces the Solomon with the dedicatory verses to the Queen quoted above from the 1676 edition. Bound up in a miscellaneous collection of papers, it seems to be of about the same date as the other British Museum copy. This second copy, MS. Lansdowne 489 (foll. 121-127), in a copyist's hand, reposes in a small folio volume (12″ x 8″) which includes the autograph “Charles Cheyney. 1643.” The name and date appear, however, on a smaller sheet of paper quite different from that of the Solomon and may not be of exactly the same time. The Solomon text is immediately preceded in this contemporary commonplace book by a piece bearing the date 30 June 1640. The initials “G.S.” and “finis” appear in yellow and red, respectively. This copy also begins with the dedication “To y^e Queene” and on folio 128 quotes (as given above in this paper) nine lines of “Y^e Jydm^nt of Sidney Godolphin ❙ On y^e former worke not printed,” concluding with the initials “S.G.” at the end in red.

The three American manuscripts bound into copies of the 1638 A Paraphrase upon the Divine Poems are apparently all contemporary fair copies; that is, they are in neatly spaced, unblotted, earlier seventeenth-century secretarial hands. The Library Company of Philadelphia copy is in a beautiful but simple contemporary English binding. On the printed title page, under the imprint, is written in ink “Ex dono Authoris ❙ Arundell & Surry ❙ virtutis Laus Actio.” An examination by the Rosenbach Company's binding experts a few years ago produced the suggestion that Sandys himself had had this copy bound before presentation to the famous art-collector the Earl of Arundell, for the Earl would probably have had his arms on the covers if he had it bound after receiving it.¹⁰ Besides the manuscript of the Solomon, this volume also contains two manuscript dedicatory poems, “To the Queen of Bohemia” and “To his Grace of Canterbury,” items which themselves offer interesting suggestions as to the poet's associations and especially as to his practice in dedications,¹¹ for the verses to the Queen of Bohemia appear in printed form in at least one copy of the 1638 Paraphrase.¹² The Solomon manuscript is bound in its proper place among the Biblical printed materials, between Ecclesiastes and Jeremiah, possibly another indication that it was so placed by the author's order when he had the volume bound.¹³ The paper is naturally not identical with that of the printed sheets but seems contemporary. The historical fact that Arundell was out of England from July, 1641, for the rest of his life save for one short visit late in 1641, added to Sandys' known habit of making several presentations of copies of his work at the time of publication,¹⁴ seem to indicate that this manuscript was written at least before July, 1641, most probably in 1637/8.

The University of Cincinnati Solomon, an eight-leaved manuscript, also is bound in at the proper place between Ecclesiastes and Jeremiah, and also appears to be on contemporary paper, though naturally with a separate signature and different watermark.¹⁵ The binding is of contemporary calf, and there is no indication that it was a presentation copy. There is in this copy a manuscript title page, reading

          A PARAPHRASE
VPON THE SONG
          of Solomon
                    By George
                    Sandys
                              Anno
                              1637
                              _____
                              _____
                                        ____
                                        ___
                                        __
                                                  _

On the verso of this title page, at the top in a contemporary and perhaps identical hand with the text of the Solomon, are the words “To the Queene.” Since the rest of the page is blank it may be presumed that the copyist originally planned to place here the verses to the Queen quoted above. On the title page of the printed book, in the same hand, are the words “Soles occidere & redire possunt z[?]i.”

In the Folger Shakespeare Library 1638 Paraphrase, STC 21725 [Smedley], is bound a six-leaved manuscript of the Solomon. It is bound in at the end, but this signifies little, for the book has been rebound within the last fifty years.¹⁶ But the title is interesting and suggestive:

A Paraphrase upon Solomons Song.
                    Dedicated to the Queene.
          But not sufferd to be printed.

Obviously this indicates a date before 1641, probably 1637/8. It is equally obvious that the writer of these lines considered the poem as an addendum to or completion of the printed text.

Now as to the manuscript texts in relation to the printed texts. For the sake of convenience, comparisons will be made generally with the two early printed texts, 1641 and 1642. In the seven manuscripts there is considerable though not sharp variation in spacing and in the location on the page of division headings, Canto, Sponsus, Sponsa, and Chorus; there is more variation in capitalization, punctuation, spelling, and phrasing. A word which in 1641 [1642 appears as Odors] Odours, in various manuscripts appears as Odors ❙ odors ❙ Odours ❙ odours, without an entire consistency in any one manuscript in either spelling or capitalization. Printed Bitheron]Betheron appear in manuscript five times with the “i,” twice with the “e.” Printed Terza]Terzah is thrice Tyrzah, twice Terzah, once Tirzah, and once Teriah in the manuscripts. Printed Cyprus]Cypresse is five times Cypresse and twice Cyprus in the manuscripts. The exclamatory printed ô]O becomes in manuscript oh, ô, and O. The copyists who contract or abbreviate are usually fairly consistent, as the BMLansd, which employs w^th and y^e.

Peculiarities of individual word or phrase or variant form of words tend to fall into groups among the manuscripts; but no pattern is discernible, for the same sort of peculiarity does not necessarily remain in the same manuscripts. Line 10 of 1641 To thy prepared Chamber bring: is in all other printed and manuscript versions Into thy Royall Chamber bring (of course with variant spellings). The 1641 line 94 word Harts is also present in 1642, LCPhila, BodRawl, BMSloane, Cincinnati, Folger, and 1676; but the word becomes Hinds in BodMus and BMLansd. Yet BodMus shares with BodRawl line 105 in … words, his looks invite instead of the … looks, his words invite of all other versions. In line 119, the word Dove occurs in 1641, LCPhila, BMSloane, BMLansd, Cincinnati, and 1676; and the word Love in 1642, BodMus, BodRawl, and Folger. In line 143 Vntraced in 1641, BMSloane, Cincinnati, and 1676, is Vnsearched in 1642, Vntrodden in LCPhila, BodMus, BodRawl, BMLansd, and Have left untrod in Folger. In line 128 prosperous Rapine in 1641, 1642, 1676, the two BM's, Cincinnati, and Folger is thriving rapine in LCPhila, BodMus, and BodRawl. In line 245, Like Christall Streams which issue from in 1641, 1642, 1676, the two BM's, and Cincinnati becomes Like those clear Streames … in two Bodleians and Like Christall Streams that gently run in the Folger. In line 451 May I thy Fingers … in 1641, 1642, 1676, LCPhila, BodMus, the two BM's, and Cincinnati, becomes Let me thy fingers … in BodRawl and Folger.

Generally, Cincinnati and BMSloane are the two manuscripts most resembling 1641 and 1676, though they share line 10 with 1642 rather than 1641, and in spelling are about as much like one of the two early printed versions as the other. Actually both in line 68 use the spelling Cyprus as 1641, while all other versions spell Cypresse. They follow 1641 also in line 314, Bases instead of the 1642 Bosses, though this they share with all other copies except Folger.

Though the LCPhila text also much resembles 1641, it is almost as much like 1642 in spelling. It differs from both in several lines: e.g., line 22, 1641]1642 Solomon]Solomon, in LCPhila Salomon; in line 128, for the printed Vntraced]Unsearched, LCPhila has Untrodden; in line 161, printed Beautie]What beauty becomes in LCPhila What's this; in line 305, printed Rivolet]-Rivolet is spelled in LCPhila Rivulet.

BodMus shows some carelessness in copying. Line 224, for example, is omitted; in other places phrases and lines are reversed or inverted. In spelling BodMus varies between 1641 and 1642, and in lines 245, 364, 397, 438, 460, 494 has new single words or phrases. For example, in line 245, 1641 Like Christall Streams … changes as noticed above; in line 484, 1641 cheerful becomes in BodMus pleasinge [only example].

In BodRawl the copyist omits lines 397-398 but in general presents a text between 1641 and 1642 sharing idiosyncrasies of spelling in some instances with BodMus. One variant may be an auditory error: line 317, 1641 … the eare with Musick … becomes in BodRawl … y^e ayre with musick … [only example]. The same sort of error may have occurred in line 367, 1641 Then unaware, and … ; BodRawl When unawares, and. … As noted above BodRawl shares with BodMus the variant of 1641 line 245. BodRawl is the only copy to have in line 424 the word spring instead of love. And it shares with Folger, line 451 Lett me for the usual May I.

BMLansd differs from the printed versions perhaps more than the five mentioned above. Most of its several divergent words and phrases may be, however, the result of careless errors in transcription. Thus in line 135, the normal duskie] dusky is duskish; in line 148 desir'd is admir'd; in line 240, Teares is trees; in line 292 And with your teares soft pitty move. becomes And w^th soft teares his pitty move; in line 371, Shulamite becomes Sulamite. In lines 403-404 … Palmes high Crowne ❙ … Victorious Hands renown becomes … ye Palmes high crowned, ❙ … victorious hand renowned,. These are all unique variants.

The Folger has been considered last, for it differs quite radically in many of its lines from all the others.¹⁷ In several instances it agrees with the 1642 instead of the 1641 (e.g., in single words in lines 200, 208, 209, 314, 456; in Bosses for 1641 Bases; in would for could). Phrases frequently differ from those of all other versions. And beginning just before the middle of the poem, in lines 215-226, and continuing through to the end are more than seventy lines differing so markedly from all other versions as to establish the Folger as a really variant text of the poem. For this reason several parallel passages should be given for comparison:

1641

FOLGER

In most instances the phrasing is more felicitous, the line less crowded and the meter therefore tighter, in the 1641 (and all other versions) than in this Folger. The fact that the Folger text bears the subtitle “not sufferd to be printed” indicates, as suggested above, that this is an early manuscript. It might easily be Sandys' first version of the Solomon, for revised versions of other verse of his—the Metamorphosis, for example, much of which exists in three versions and part in four—tend in their later forms to show just the sort of “improvements” the 1641 shows over the Folger: the happier phrase and the more regular line.¹⁸ The Folger appears to be at least a “rejected” (for printing) early version of the poem.

From these ten printed and manuscript texts it is impossible to trace anything like a manuscript tree, for there is nothing like a clear line of descent, nor necessarily any line of descent. There are enough real (as opposed to copyists' erroneous) changes in word and phrase and even line to indicate that the poet himself had allowed his verse to be transcribed at different periods, when he was still polishing. Perhaps one is safe in surmising that all the manuscript versions, with the possible though not probable exception of BMLansd, were transcribed before 1641, and some of them as early as 1637, when the Court knew that Sandys would not include the Solomon in A Paraphrase upon the Divine Poems. The actual existence of so many fair copies is new evidence that the poet and the poem were extremely popular in the period. And the erotic subject and sensuous phrase may have made it especially appealing in Court and general circles. The LCPhila copy, and perhaps the Cincinnati and the Folger, may indicate that the poet could defy authority to the extent of presenting his unpublished verse bound in with his published. This is the only instance known to the writer of English Renaissance “outlawed” material being bound with licensed material and apparently so distributed by the author himself,¹⁹ an interesting if not a significant matter.

Perhaps the publication of this essay may lead to the discovery of the lost 1641 Oxford edition, and that in turn to a clarification of the relation of several of the manuscript versions to each other. At all events, students of Stuart poetry may be interested to know that at least seven manuscript versions of a most popular poem of the period still exist, and that at least one version offers a hitherto quite unknown text of the poem.

Notes

1. Richard Beale Davis, George Sandys, Poet-Adventurer (London and New York, 1955), pp. 236-240.

2. A Paraphrase upon the Divine Poems (London, 1638), p. (**2).

3. Davis, George Sandys, Poet-Adventurer, p. 243.

4. Sir Thomas Herbert, Memoirs of the Last Two Years of the Reign of King Charles I (London, 1839), p. 61.

5. R. B. Davis, “Two New Manuscript Items for a George Sandys Bibliography,” PBSA, XXXVII (1943), 215-222.

6. Fredson Bowers and R. B. Davis, George Sandys: a Bibliographical Catalogue of Printed Editions in England to 1700 (New York, 1950), p. 43. The New York Public Library owns a copy (*KC 1638 Sandys) bound with royal arms at the side and the Prince of Wales's coronet in the corners. The British Museum has a copy with the arms of Charles I on the binding.

7. Handbook of the Popular … Literature of Great Britain (London, 1867), p. 533.

8. Bowers and Davis, George Sandys: a Catalogue, pp. 52-53.

9. A Paraphrase upon the Divine Poems (London, 1676), p. 24 (of pagination beginning with Ecclesiastes).

10. Letter to R. B. Davis from the late Austin K. Gray of the Library Company of Philadelphia, December 4, 1941. At the same time the Rosenbach Company possessed a presentation copy from the author to G[ilbert] Watts (translator of Bacon and compiler of the MS. catalogue of Charles I) which bears Watts's arms on both boards.

11. Discussed at some length, and the texts given, in Davis, “Two Manuscript Items,” loc. cit., pp. 215-222, and in “George Sandys and Two ‘Uncollected’ Poems,” Huntington Library Quarterly, XII (1947), 297-304.

12. Folger Shakespeare Library, STC 21725b [Harmsworth], not to be confused with STC 21725 [Smedley].

13. The book has been examined for me recently by Mr. Edwin Wolf, 2nd, Librarian, Library Company of Philadelphia.

14. R. B. Davis, “George Sandys v. William Stansby: the 1632 Edition of Ovid's Metamorphosis,” The Library, 5th ser., III (1948), 198-199.

15. Examined for me recently by Miss Rachel Raisin, Reference Librarian, University of Cincinnati Library.

16. This copy has been reëxamined for me by Dr. Giles E. Dawson, Curator of Manuscripts of the Folger Shakespeare Library.

17. A century and a half ago A. Clifford, in Tixall Poetry (London, 1813, pp. 335-336), mentioned that he had in his possession “a manuscript copy of [the Solomon] … transcribed in the year 1638, which I have great reason to believe has never been faithfully printed.” He might refer to the Folger copy, but probably to some copy now unknown (particularly if it actually bore the date 1638).

18. Davis, George Sandys, Poet-Adventurer, pp. 209-212.

19. As indicated in note 10 above and in Bowers and Davis, George Sandys: a Bibliographical Catalogue, p. 43, there are of course presentation copies of the 1638 Paraphrase which do not contain the manuscript Solomon.