Selimus: Reception in Print
Para1Like most other printed playtexts of the time, Thomas Creede’s 1594 edition of Selimus is spartan in its layout; no dedicatory epistle, author’s preface, errata page, or
set of commendatory verses adorn its first gathering.1 As the play text’s publisher, Creede did fashion, however, a rather busy title page
for his quarto, one that includes, along with his printer’s emblem and imprint, a
long title and three blurbs. These additions give us a good sense of Creede’s assessment
of Selimus as one its earliest readers. Creede’s title not only promises the
First partof what is advertised in the conclusion as a two-part story but also indicates the play’s genre (i.e.
Tragicall) and seemingly alludes to the current ruler of the Ottoman Empire Murad III (if by
grandfather,Creede meant great grandfather). This allusion was likely not an afterthought. Events having to do with Turkey had drawn Creede’s interest the previous autumn when he entered a news pamphlet in the Stationers’ Register that recounted a recent battle in Croatia involving the Ottomans. His description of Selimus as
grandfather to him now raigneththen was part of larger publication strategy to appeal to readers interested in happenings to the east. The title page’s following two blurbs both provide recaps of the play’s action, Selimus’s war against and poisoning of his father as well as his
murthering of his two brethren.Its highlighting of Selimus’s actions as
unnaturalechoes similar characterizations in the text; it also presents the play as entirely a Selimus vehicle even while the actions and affective registers of both Bajazeth and Acomat are equally brought to the fore. In this, Creede aligned his offering with Tamburlaine the Great which had the year before reached a second edition. The title page’s third blurb promises a version of the play
as it was playd by the Queenes Maiesties Players.Advertising the theatrical provenance of a play was a common print strategy of the time, encouraging buyers to read plays as vestiges of past performances. Though it often has been argued that the Queen’s Men were essentially defunct at that point, this gesture suggests that at least Creede thought there was something to be gained from conjuring thoughts of the company in prospective readers.
Para2Creede’s 1594 first edition of Selimus was not a bestseller. It was reprinted neither in the second half of the 1590s nor
in the decades that followed, and Creede eventually transferred his unsold copies
to John Crooke and Richard Sergier. In what was probably an attempt to move a stack
of unbound quartos, the two booksellers reissued the play in1638 with a new title
page. This reissue is a much more restrained affair than its predecessor. Gone is
the prologue, and, cutting the 1594 edition’s lurid blurbs, its spartan title page
recasts the play as a stand-alone tragedy with no second part. Promised is not a
a most lamentable history(Prologue Sp1) of war, patrocide, fratricide, and
an unplacable king(Prologue Sp1) but simply
The Tragedy of Selimus Emperour of the Turkes.Unlike the first edition, though, it ascribes the play to what remains an elusive
T.G.In the late nineteenth century, Alexander Grosart suggested that this was a botched reference to Robert Greene, but one can only wonder why Crooke and Sergier would prefer
R.G.to
Robert Greene; some of Greene’s titles like Pandosto and A Quip for an Upstart Courtier were still selling four decades after their author’s death, and these reprints all trafficked in Greene’s full name, not his initials.
Para3Though neither Creede’s first edition nor Crooke and Sergier’s reissue garnered enough
interest for a second edition, we are fortunate that in some of the copies that did
sell we have manuscript evidence of reception by the play’s buyers. Each set of additions
suggests a particular response to the play. Some of this evidence is limited and difficult
to parse. One of the three Dyce copies of the 1594 edition held at the Victoria and
Albert Museum, for example, contains the seventeenth or eighteenth-century ownership
signature
G. Pinsonabove the prologue, a correction to
Anthropomphagion F3r, and an
xnext to
Your eyes do see, but mine can nere beholdon F3v. This latter mark is as inscrutable as the single
xin the otherwise clean 1638 copy of Selimus owned by the Huntington Library. There, it was inscribed to the left of Bajazeth’s early description of Corcut—i.e.
Corcut in faire Magnesia leades his life, / In learning Arts, and Mahounds dreaded lawesA4r (Sc1 Sp2). Owners of the National Library of Scotland’s 1594 Selimus were interested in ascription and organization. The copy has
Anonymouswritten over Creede’s printer’s emblem on the title page and, in a different hand, divisions for Acts two through five boldly inked in. Apparently looking to regularize the pentameter, a reader of the British Library’s reissued Selimus wrote
wordbetween
Butand
thatin Hali Bassa’s nine-syllable line
But that thy Page betraied thee to vs(Sc22 Sp7). This copy also contains an early bookseller’s receipt for six pence on one of its many end pages, the standard price for an unbound play in 1638.
Para4More revealing are the marks left in the Folger Shakespeare Library’s copy of the
1594 edition. This copy contains the ownership signature
Hen: Wrightin the upper-right-hand corner of the title page as well as over twenty passages all inscribed by the same quill either with underlining, with a manicule and underlining, or with what G.K. Hunter has described as gnomic markers (i.e. inverted commas). Though it is impossible to know whether these were made by Wright, gnomic markers were very much an early modern phenomenon, part of the craze for commonplacing and commonplace books that was an offshoot of the humanist pedagogical practices that so shaped the period. They were used too by authors, compilers, publishers, and readers to indicate sententiae (i.e. quotable passages) in both printed titles and manuscripts. As Zachary Lesser and Peter Stallybrass have traced, it was not until the late 1590s that professional drama was considered commonplaceable, that is, of enough literary merit to be seen as a source of quotable wisdom. This was mainly accomplished through the publications of the Bodenham circle, of which England’s Parnassus was one. The early reader of the Folger Selimus was clearly an heir of this development. Indeed, the first passages that he or she highlighted—Bajazeth’s
He knows not what it is to be a King, / That thinks a scepter is a pleasant thing(Sc1 Sp2)—was also excerpted in Allott’s sententiae volume. Not surprisingly, the lion’s share of passages marked in the Folger copy come from speeches spoken by either Bajazeth or Selimus. Four alone come from Selimus’s first speech, sentiments like
Auant such glasses: let them view in me, / The perfect picture of right tyrannie(Sc2 Sp1) as well as
And these religions obseruations, / Onely bug-beares to keepe the world in feare / And make men quietly a yoake to beare(Sc2 Sp1). A few of the copy’s marked passages like Bajazeth’s
Well I must seeme to winke at his desire(Sc3 Sp3) are not sententiae at all but lines that simply provoked the reader for one reason or another. Perhaps the most striking of these is Mustaffa’s vow
So helpe me God and holy Mahomet(Sc25 Sp4). Whether the reader found the holy vow ironic because Muslim or moving because it prefaced Mustaffa’s doom is impossible to know.
Para5The 1594 copy of Selimus held at the Beinecke Rare Book & Manuscript Library bears witness to a different
mode of reception by an early reader. It apparently at one time was the first in a
sammelband collection of fifteen plays. A sammelband is a composite volume of two
or more titles, manuscript and/or print, that is bound together by its owner. On the
first page of the A gathering in what otherwise is a clean copy is the following table
of contents (with author and date of the first print edition added in brackets) in
what looks like a seventeenth-century hand:
Plays vol. 20 | Selimus Emp. of the Turks unknown, 1594 | Mulleasses the Turk John Mason, 1610 | Mustaffa Fulke Greville, 1609 | Rape of Lucrece Thomas Heywood, 1608 | Claudius Tiberius Nero unknown, 1607 | Croesus William Alexander, 1604 | Darius William Alexander, 1603 | The Alexandrian Tragedy William Alexander, 1607 | Julius Caesar William Alexander, 1607 | Caesar and Pompey George Chapman?, 1606? | Cornelia Thomas Kyd, 1594 | Marius and Scilla Thomas Lodge, 1594 | Mariam Elizabeth Carey, 1613 | David and Fair Bathsheba George Peele, 1599 | Miseries of Enforst Marriage George Wilkins, 1607 | Vol. 20.If the collection only contained first editions (which is unlikely), the earliest possible date of its compilation is 1613. In terms of size and content, this bound collection of plays would have been similar to those put together by Sir John Harington in the early seventeenth century which contained between eleven and thirteen quartos. Harington’s
7 tomeincluded a copy of the 1594 Selimus, the eleventh title in a collection of thirteen. While the principle behind this sammelbande’s content and ordering is elusive, the Beinecke sammelbande’s is seemingly straightforward. All of its plays are tragedies or have significant tragic content, and, with the exception of Wilkins’s Miseries of Enforced Marriage, all them belong to one or more subgroupings organized by topic (i.e. the Turks), or period (i.e. the classical period), and/or author (i.e. William Alexander). That three Turk plays are grouped with eleven classical-period plays suggests that whoever compiled the sammelbande was equating spacial, temporal, and religious difference, England being assumed to be as different from Muslim Turkey as it was from pagan Greece and Rome. Selimus, in other words, was exoticized by the compiler of this seventeenth-century sammelbande. At the same time, in associating Selimus, Mulleasses the Turk, and Mustaffa with plays about the empires of Greece and Rome, this reader was also extolling the expansive ambitions of the Ottomans.
Para6Later readers of Selimus’s first edition and reissue also left provocative tracks.
At Oxford’s Bodleian Library are Edmond Malone’s copies of the 1594 Selimus and the 1638 reissue. The famed British scholar and literary biographer had begun
assembling an extensive collection of early modern poetry and drama towards the end
of the eighteenth century, and much of it was donated to Oxford in 1821, nine years
after his death. Like he did in a number of his early modern playbooks, Malone marked
each copy with a note opposite the title page. In the 1594 quarto, he pointed out
that
This play was reprinted in 1638, and falsely ascribed to Thomas Goffe; in consequence partally of his having written the Raging Turk, Couragious Turk, &c EM.Malone’s note in the 1638 reissue doubles down on this indictment of Crooke and Sergier:
This is merely a repuplication of the old and very scarce play of Selimus, printed in 1594…. The words added in this title page “Written T.G.” were inserted for the purpose of deception, to induce the purchaser to suppose that this play was written by Thomas Gough, who had sometime before written two plays entitled The Raging Turk, and the Courageous Turk. He appears to have been a popular dramatist, and was at this time (1638) dead EM. I have preserved this copy to show what havock is generally made in second editions at the press: not that this is more faulty in that respect than many others.Supporting Shakespeare-editor Edward Capell’s valorization of first editions as crucial textual witnesses, Malone describes the 1638 title-page ascription of Selimus to
T.G.as an example of the muddying interventions that publishers and printers often introduced when reprinting a play. For Malone, such title-page
havockconstitutues the play book’s enduring importance, not any literary value.
Para7Other traces can be found in the Houghton Library’s 1594 copy. On the quarto’s opening
page in the upper right-hand corner is the signature
John Mitford 1826…. Jan: 1823.Mitford was a sailor turned journalist who wrote for many of London’s grub-street periodicals of the day. At some point in the following decades this copy was then acquired by the actor, playwright, and theatrical publisher Thomas Hailes Lacy, who below Mitford’s inscription wrote
Tho H. Lacy 1860. £1.7.0.At that time, Lacy was collecting new material for a revised edition of David Erskine Baker’s two-volume Biographia Dramatica (rev. 1812), and his reading of Selimus appears to have been partly to that end. From Baker’s encyclopedic tome, Lacy drew an account of the play’s authorship—
‘It is … ascribed to Th. Goffe, who from his then age, could not possibly be the author.’—which he inserted under his 1860 signature. He also added page numbers in the quarto’s upper corners, marked Selimus’s description of Tonombey as
that great Aegyptian bug(Sc28 Sp3), and bracketed three passages spoken by Bullithrumble (H1v, H2v 2). He then added the following to its last end-paper page:
P.55. 56. | P.67. “that great Aegyptian bug..” Hamlet. Act V. Sc.ii. p.347. ed. Read. | P.68. Unctions. i.e. Hedge.hogs. | P.54. Cramuk.This short index points to Lacy’s interest both in the play’s clown and in its obscure vocabulary. Its first entry references the marked Bullithrumble passages. Its second cross- references Selimus’s Tonombey description with Hamlet’s
such bugs and goblins in my life.The third entry glosses Selimus’s disparaging description of Acomat and company as
vrchins(K1r, Sc29 Sp1), and with his fourth entry Lacy was possibly intending to provide a gloss for Bullithrumble’s complaint that his wife was
cramukwith him (H1v).
Para8For the only identifiable early female reader, the playtext’s sloppiness and anachronistic
perspective were at issue. The National Library of Scotland’s 1638 copy was owned
in the eighteenth or nineteenth centuries by one
Priscila Sparowwho in a large hand signed the verso side of the copy’s second end leaf. At some point, the copy made its way to the library of Thomas Maitland who in turn gave it to the Edinburgh’s Advocate Library in 1912. Two of Sparow’s four interventions are corrections. On D3r, she marks one of the edition’s many cases of creative spelling, underlining
Danioclesand writing
Damoclesacross from it in the right-hand margin. Pages on, she corrects a faulty stage direction, crossing out
Mustaffaon H3r and writing
^Bajazetimmediately below. Sparow’s correction of it bespeaks a close engagement with the playtext’s theatrical apparatus. This may simply have been the product of a diligent reading or possibly of some kind of amateur home production of the play. The last of her interventions take the play to task for its Elizabethan setting. In the lower left-hand margin of H2r, Sparow adds two manicules. The upper points at Bullithrumple’s underlined vow about the truth of his name that he
wil bring my godfathers and godmothers, and they shal swear it vpon the font stone, and vpon the church booke too, where it is written(Sc20 Sp7). Below this, introduced by a second manicule, Sparrow zeroes in on the clown’s Anglican reasoning, sarcastically observing that
The Author seems to haue forgot his scene lies in Turky.
Prosopography
Andrew Griffin
Andrew Griffin is an associate professor in the department of English and an affiliate
professor in the department of Theater and Dance at the University of California,
Santa Barbara. He is general editor (text) of Queen’s Men Editions. He studies early
modern drama and early modern historiography while serving as the lead editor at the
EMC Imprint. He has co-edited with Helen Ostovich and Holger Schott Syme Locating the Queen’s Men (2009) and has co-edited The Making of a Broadside Ballad (2016) with Patricia Fumerton and Carl Stahmer. His monograph, Untimely Deaths in Renaissance Drama: Biography, History, Catastrophe, was published with the University of Toronto Press in 2019. He is editor of the
anonymous The Chronicle History of King Leir (Queen’s Men Editions, 2011). He can be contacted at griffin@english.ucsb.edu.
Helen Ostovich
Helen Ostovich, professor emerita of English at McMaster University, is the founder
and general editor of Queen’s Men Editions. She is a general editor of The Revels Plays (Manchester University Press); Series
Editor of Studies in Performance and Early Modern Drama (Ashgate, now Routledge),
and series co-editor of Late Tudor and Stuart Drama (MIP); play-editor of several
works by Ben Jonson, in Four Comedies: Ben Jonson (1997); Every Man Out of his Humour (Revels 2001); and The Magnetic Lady (Cambridge 2012). She has also edited the Norton Shakespeare 3 The Merry Wives of Windsor Q1602 and F1623 (2015); The Late Lancashire Witches and A Jovial Crew for Richard Brome Online, revised for a 4-volume set from OUP 2021; The Ball, for the Oxford Complete Works of James Shirley (2021); The Merry Wives of Windsor for Internet Shakespeare Editions, and The Dutch Courtesan (with Erin Julian) for the Complete Works of John Marston, OUP 2022. She has published
many articles and book chapters on Jonson, Shakespeare, and others, and several book
collections, most recently Magical Transformations of the Early Modern English Stage with Lisa Hopkins (2014), and the equivalent to book website, Performance as Research in Early English Theatre Studies: The Three Ladies of London in Context containing scripts, glossary, almost fifty conference papers edited and updated to
essays; video; link to Queenʼs Mens Ediitons and YouTube: http://threeladiesoflondon.mcmaster.ca/contexts/index.htm, 2015. Recently, she was guest editor of Strangers and Aliens in London ca 1605,
Special Issue on Marston, Early Theatre 23.1 (June 2020). She can be contacted at ostovich@mcmaster.ca.
Janelle Jenstad
Janelle Jenstad is a Professor of English at the University of
Victoria, Director of The Map
of Early Modern London, and Director of Linked Early Modern Drama
Online. With Jennifer Roberts-Smith and Mark Kaethler, she
co-edited Shakespeare’s Language in Digital Media: Old
Words, New Tools (Routledge). She has edited John Stow’s
A Survey of London (1598 text) for MoEML
and is currently editing The Merchant of Venice
(with Stephen Wittek) and Heywood’s 2 If You Know Not
Me You Know Nobody for DRE. Her articles have appeared in
Digital Humanities Quarterly, Elizabethan Theatre, Early Modern
Literary Studies, Shakespeare
Bulletin, Renaissance and
Reformation, and The Journal of Medieval
and Early Modern Studies. She contributed chapters to Approaches to Teaching Othello (MLA); Teaching Early Modern Literature from the Archives
(MLA); Institutional Culture in Early Modern
England (Brill); Shakespeare, Language, and
the Stage (Arden); Performing Maternity in
Early Modern England (Ashgate); New
Directions in the Geohumanities (Routledge); Early Modern Studies and the Digital Turn (Iter);
Placing Names: Enriching and Integrating
Gazetteers (Indiana); Making Things and
Drawing Boundaries (Minnesota); Rethinking
Shakespeare Source Study: Audiences, Authors, and Digital
Technologies (Routledge); and Civic
Performance: Pageantry and Entertainments in Early Modern
London (Routledge). For more details, see janellejenstad.com.
Kim Shortreed
Kim is a PhD Candidate in Media Studies and Digital Humanities, through UVicʼs English
Department. Kim has worked for years in TEI and XML, mostly through the Colonial Despatches
website, and in a number of roles, including technical editor, research and markup,
writing and editing, documentation, and project management. Recently, Kim worked with
a team of Indigenous students to find ways to decolonize the Despatches projectʼs content and encoding practices. Part of Kimʼs dissertation
project, Contracolonial Practices in Salish Sea Namescapes, is to prototype a haptic map, a motion-activated topography installation that plays audio clips of spoken toponyms,
in SENĆOŦEN and English, of the W̱SÁNEĆ Territory/Saanich Peninsula, respectively.
Kirk Melnikoff
Kirk Melnikoff is Professor of English at UNC Charlotte and a past president of the
Marlowe Society of America. His research interests range from sixteenth-century British
Literature and Culture, to Shakespeare in Performance, to Book History. His essays
have appeared in a number of journals and books, and he is the author of Elizabethan Book Trade Publishing and the Makings of Literary Culture (U Toronto P, 2018). He has also edited four essay collections, most recently Christopher Marlowe, Theatrical Commerce, and the Book Trade (Cambridge UP, 2018), and published an edition of Robert Greene’s James IV in 2020. He is currently co-editing a collection of early modern book-trade wills
which will be published by Manchester UP, editing Marlowe’s Edward II for the Oxford Marlowe: Collected Works project, and working on a monograph on bookselling in early modern England.
Martin Holmes
Martin Holmes has worked as a developer in the
UVicʼs Humanities Computing and Media Centre for
over two decades, and has been involved with dozens
of Digital Humanities projects. He has served on
the TEI Technical Council and as Managing Editor of
the Journal of the TEI. He took over from Joey Takeda as
lead developer on LEMDO in 2020. He is a collaborator on
the SSHRC Partnership Grant led by Janelle Jenstad.
Navarra Houldin
Project manager 2022-present. Textual remediator 2021-present. Navarra Houldin (they/them)
completed their BA in History and Spanish at the University of Victoria in 2022. During
their degree, they worked as a teaching assistant with the University of Victoriaʼs
Department of Hispanic and Italian Studies. Their primary research was on gender and
sexuality in early modern Europe and Latin America.
Peter Cockett
Peter Cockett is an associate professor in the Theatre and Film Studies at McMaster
University. He is the general editor (performance), and technical co-ordinating editor
of Queen’s Men Editions. He was the stage director for the Shakespeare and the Queen’s Men project (SQM),
directing King Leir, The Famous Victories of Henry V, and Friar Bacon and Friar Bungay (2006) and he is the performance editor for our editions of those plays. The process
behind those productions is documented in depth on his website Performing the Queen’s Men. Also featured on this site are his PAR productions of Clyomon and Clamydes (2009) and Three Ladies of London (2014). For the PLS, the University of Toronto’s Medieval and Renaissance Players,
he has directed the Digby Mary Magdalene (2003) and the double bill of George Peele’s The Old Wives Tale and the Chester Antichrist (2004). He also directed An Experiment in Elizabethan Comedy (2005) for the SQM project and Inside Out: The Persistence of Allegory (2008) in collaboration with Alan Dessen. Peter is a professional actor and director
with numerous stage and screen credits. He can be contacted at cockett@mcmaster.ca.
Bibliography
Gants, David.
Creede, Thomas (b. in or before 1554, d. 1616), printer.Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. Oxford University Press, 2004.
Lesser, Zachary, and
Peter Stallybrass.
The First Literary Hamlet and the Commonplacing of Professional Plays.Shakespeare Quarterly 59.4 (2008): 371–420. WSB bbw741.
Orgography
LEMDO Team (LEMD1)
The LEMDO Team is based at the University of Victoria and normally comprises the project
director, the lead developer, project manager, junior developers(s), remediators,
encoders, and remediating editors.
Queenʼs Men Editions (QME1)
The Queen’s Men Editions anthology is led by Helen Ostovich, General Editor; Peter
Cockett, General Editor (Performance); and Andrew Griffin, General Editor (Text).
University of Victoria (UVIC1)
https://www.uvic.ca/Metadata
Authority title | Selimus: Reception in Print |
Type of text | Critical |
Short title | Sel: Print |
Publisher | University of Victoria on the Linked Early Modern Drama Online Platform |
Series | Queenʼs Men Editions |
Source |
Born digital document written by Kirk Melnikoff. Sent by QME to LEMDO as a PDF and encoded by Janelle Jenstad, Kim Shortreed, and the LEMDO Team.
|
Editorial declaration | n/a |
Edition | Released with Queenʼs Men Editions 2.0 |
Sponsor(s) |
Queenʼs Men EditionsThe Queen’s Men Editions anthology is led by Helen Ostovich, General Editor; Peter
Cockett, General Editor (Performance); and Andrew Griffin, General Editor (Text).
|
Encoding description | Encoded in TEI P5 according to the LEMDO Customization and Encoding Guidelines |
Document status | published, peer-reviewed |
Licence/availability | Intellectual copyright in this edition is held by the editor, Kirk Melnikoff. The critical paratexts, including this Reception in Print, are licensed under a CC BY-NC_ND 4.0 license, which means that they are freely downloadable without permission under the following conditions: (1) credit must be given to the editor, QME, and LEMDO in any subsequent use of the files and/or data; (2) the content cannot be adapted or repurposed (except for quotations for the purposes of academic review and citation); and (3) commercial uses are not permitted without the knowledge and consent of QME, the editor, and LEMDO. This license allows for pedagogical use of the critical paratexts in the classroom. Production photographs and videos on this site may not be downloaded. They appear freely on this site with the permission of the actors and the ACTRA union. They may be used within the context of university courses, within the classroom, and for reference within research contexts, including conferences, when credit is given to the producing company and to the actors. Commercial use of videos and photographs is forbidden. |