The Publication of the Early Editions of Francis Quarles's Emblemes (1635) and Hieroglyphikes (1638)

The publication of the early editions of Francis Quarles's Emblemes and Hieroglyphikes has several unusual features. The most important of these only became apparent with the discovery of a petition brought in the Court of Chancery in 1641 in which Quarles contested the right of two stationers, Francis Eglesfield and John Williams, to publish the works. The suit was first noticed by Gordon S. Haight, who drew attention to it in The Library in 1934.¹ It was a significant discovery, but at least one of Haight's weightier conclusions (that there was a 1640 edition of the two works, now lost) was never valid.² A fresh scrutiny of all the relevant evidence is long overdue.

The first edition of the Short-Title Catalogue in 1926 had recorded an edition of Emblemes in 1635,³ one of Hieroglyphikes in 1638,⁴ and one of the two works together in 1639.⁵ The next edition, chronologically, again of Emblemes and Hieroglyphikes together, is dated 1643.⁶ But before Haight's discovery had been published the existence of yet a further edition of Emblemes, also with the date 1635,⁷ had been established, although he appears to have been unaware of it. It is principally upon the nature and chronology of these editions that the lawsuit provides fresh illumination.⁸

As might be expected, the Chancery proceedings reveal clear differences between Quarles's version of the affair and that of the stationers Eglesfield and Williams.⁹ But the salient points of the dispute were as follows. In February 1639/40 Quarles's son-in-law, Euseby Marbury, was in need of £30. Not being able to supply that amount himself, Quarles decided to obtain a loan and approached Eglesfield, who, at the time, owed him £100 for copies of Emblemes and Hieroglyphikes. Eglesfield was unable to provide the necessary £30 from his own resources, but he was willing to help. Eventually, the requisite sum was obtained of one Paul Tey upon Eglesfield's bond, in which he was joined by Williams. By way of security Quarles deposited the text-copy and the engraved copperplates of Emblemes and Hieroglyphikes with Eglesfield and Williams.

The loan, made in February 1639/40 (probably on the 28th of the month), was for £30 with £1 4s. interest, and the agreement carried a penalty of £60 for default. It was due to be redeemed six months later on 28 August 1640. When the time came, Marbury failed to make the repayment, and Eglesfield and Williams were sued as guarantors and forced to pay Tey the principal, interest, and costs. To recoup their losses they printed a new edition of Emblemes and Hieroglyphikes 'imediatly after' Marbury's default, in August 1640 according to Quarles or 'at Christmas last not long before' (that is, Christmas 1640) according to Eglesfield and Williams. For this they used the text-copy and copperplate engravings deposited with them by Quarles.

Quarles claimed that he had offered Eglesfield and Williams £30 as soon as he was aware of the default, and had undertaken to pay them interest and full recompense for their damages. Eglesfield and Williams disputed this, stating that Quarles had belatedly made them an offer of £40. This they had refused to accept since they estimated that Marbury's default, and the production of a new edition, had cost them £200. However, they volunteered 'for quietnes sake' to cease printing Emblemes and Hieroglyphikes, and to return the text-copy and plates, if Quarles would pay them what appeared due according to a 'iust and true Acompt'. A further condition was that Eglesfield should be allowed time in which to dispose of the remaining copies of the edition of Emblemes and Hieroglyphikes for which he had by now paid Quarles the £100 that had been owing. Quarles's petition is dated 2 July 1641, and the response of Eglesfield and Williams came the following 21 October. It was not until 12 February 1641/2 that the Court announced its findings. Its judgement was that Eglesfield and Williams should show why...