[et_pb_section fb_built=”1″ admin_label=”section” _builder_version=”4.16″ global_colors_info=”{}”][et_pb_row _builder_version=”4.16″ _module_preset=”default” custom_margin=”-45px|auto||auto||” global_colors_info=”{}”][et_pb_column type=”4_4″ _builder_version=”4.16″ _module_preset=”default” global_colors_info=”{}”][et_pb_text _builder_version=”4.16″ _module_preset=”default” hover_enabled=”0″ global_colors_info=”{}” sticky_enabled=”0″]<\/p>\n
[\/et_pb_text][\/et_pb_column][\/et_pb_row][et_pb_row _builder_version=”4.16″ _module_preset=”default” global_colors_info=”{}”][et_pb_column type=”4_4″ _builder_version=”4.16″ _module_preset=”default” global_colors_info=”{}”][et_pb_text _builder_version=”4.20.2″ _module_preset=”default” hover_enabled=”0″ global_colors_info=”{}” sticky_enabled=”0″]<\/p>\n
This section offers a list of all extant copies of the 1619 and 1622 editions of Brooke\u2019s Catalogue<\/em>. Copies are arranged alphabetically by country, starting with Australia and ending with Wales. Each individual entry contains notes on the library, museum or cathedral in which the copy is found, its call number, and detailed copy notes. Since the project focuses heavily on who owned copies and how they were used, the copy notes are divided into three subsections: binding, ownership marks, and annotations. Each copy is supplemented by at least three images. Finally, the database is fully searchable.<\/p>\n [\/et_pb_text][\/et_pb_column][\/et_pb_row][\/et_pb_section]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" The CopiesThis section offers a list of all extant copies of the 1619 and 1622 editions of Brooke\u2019s Catalogue. Copies are arranged alphabetically by country, starting with Australia and ending with Wales. Each individual entry contains notes on the library, museum or cathedral in which the copy is found, its call number, and detailed copy […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"parent":0,"menu_order":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"","meta":{"_et_pb_use_builder":"on","_et_pb_old_content":" 1619<\/strong><\/span><\/a><\/p>\r\n F<\/span>our years before the Jaggard consortium published the Shakespeare First Folio, in 1623, one of its members, William Jaggard, was busy working on a new book of heraldry.\u00a0 Ralph Brooke\u2019s A Catalogue and Succession of the Kings, Princes etc. of England<\/em> (London, 1619)\u00a0<\/strong>is but one of many early seventeenth-century imprints on the subject.[i]<\/sup><\/a>\u00a0<\/span>As with so many books from the early modern period, A Catalogue<\/em> is best understood through the material evidence left by its readers, and yet the readers have rarely been a part of its story.\u00a0 Such neglect is, in part, a result of the controversy surrounding the work\u2019s production, and particularly the infighting between Brooke and his printer, William Jaggard, as well as Brooke\u2019s ongoing feud with various English heralds.[ii]<\/a>\u00a0<\/sup><\/span><\/p>\r\nIn 1619, Brooke was in full polemical mode, and in his Dedication to King James, he writes:<\/span>\r\n\r\nHere I discouer and reforme many things heretofore grossely mistaken, and abused by ignorant persons; who venturing beyond their owne element and skill to write of this subject, haue shewed themselves more bold and busie, then skillful in Herauldry, and have thereby so troubled the cleare fountain of Honorable Titles and Descents, flowing from your Majesty and former princes that true Nobilitie is greatly blemished and obscured thereby.<\/span><\/em>[iii]<\/a><\/sup><\/span>\r\n\r\nIn a follow-up dedication, Brooke would point to the \u201cdeformed picture of false pedigrees\u201d offered by others, and in one of the paratexts to follow, Brooke would begin to name names.\u00a0 John Stow, Thomas Milles and other English historians and antiquarians had made major errors in their charting of English nobility.[iv]<\/a>\u00a0<\/sup> Brooke\u2019s work stood as corrective (not only for the errors made by others), but for the blot it left on the country and its reputation. This was not the first of Brooke\u2019s polemical exchanges, for in the 1590s he had critiqued William Camden\u2019s Britannia<\/em>, and subsequently produced a published account, entitled A Discouerie of Certaine Errours<\/em>.[v]<\/sup><\/a>\u00a0 In 1622, Brooke would produce a revised version of his Catalogue<\/em>, claiming that the first edition\u2019s \u201cmistakings\u201d and \u201cescapes\u201d were not his fault, but rather his printer\u2019s, William Jaggard.[vi]<\/a><\/sup>\u00a0<\/span>\r\n\r\nGo to<\/em>\u00a0London: 1622<\/a>\r\n\r\n \u00a0\u00a01622<\/a><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\r\nI<\/span>n 1622, the same year that Brooke produced a revised version of his\u00a0Catalogue<\/em>,<\/span>\u00a0Augustine Vincent would produce a much longer counter to Brooke\u2019s works, both his 1619 and 1622 editions,[i]<\/a><\/sup> and in it William Jaggard would respond in detail to Brooke\u2019s accusations.[ii]<\/a> \u00a0\u00a0<\/sup><\/span>\r\n\r\nThis entangled affair raises important questions about how works are produced and who gives them authority.\u00a0 Getting it right<\/em> is a genealogist\u2019s obsession, and one can feel that mantra not only in Brooke\u2019s prefatory rhetoric, but also in the print production overseen by Jaggard.<\/span>\r\n\r\nThe story of Ralph Brooke\u2019s Catalogue<\/em> is one that is regularly told through the embattled rhetorical blows of author and printer.\u00a0 The fight over who got things wrong dictates how we see the book\u2019s production.<\/span>\r\n\r\nGo to<\/em> London: 1619<\/a>\r\n\r\n
\r\n\r\nENDNOTES<\/span>\r\n\r\n[i]<\/a> Ralph Brooke, A Catalogue and Succession of the Kings, Princes etc. of England<\/em> (London: William Jaggard, 1619) STC 3832.\r\n<\/span>\r\n[ii]<\/a> Shakespearean scholars have also been interested in Brooke\u2019s work for two reasons: printed by William Jaggard, it is one of the lead-up publications to Shakespeare\u2019s First Folio (1623), and two, in 1602 Brooke attempted to block twenty-three individuals who were to receive arms, including the claim by William Shakespeare\u2019s father John. For discussion of the incident, see James Kearney\u2019s entry \u201cStatus\u201d in The Oxford Handbook of Shakespeare<\/em>. Arthur F. Kinney ed. (Oxford: Oxford UP, 2012), 183.<\/span>\r\n\r\n[iii]<\/a> Brooke, A Catalogue and Succession of the Kings<\/em>, A3r.<\/span>\r\n\r\n[iv]<\/a> This appears in a double-columned list entitled \u201cErrors published in Print, to the great prejudice of those they concerne\u201d in A Catalogue and Succession of the Kings<\/em>, *1r-*4r.<\/span>\r\n\r\n[v]<\/a>The full title reads A discoverie of certaine errovrs pvblished in print in the much commended Britannia, 1594 : very preiudiciall to the discentes and successions of the auncient nobilitie of this realme<\/em> ([London: W. Wight and T. Judson, 1599]) STC 3834.<\/span>\r\n\r\n[vi]<\/a> Ralph Brooke, \u201cTo the Honourable and iudicious Reader\u201d in Catalogue and Succession of the Kings<\/em> ([London, William Stansby],1622) STC 3833. [A]3r.\u00a0<\/span>\r\n\r\n
\r\n
\r\n\r\nENDNOTES<\/span>\r\n\r\n[i]<\/a> Vincent, A discouerie of errours in the first edition of the catalogue of nobility, published by Raphe Brooke, Yorke Herald, 1619. and printed heerewith word for word, according to that edition: VVith a continuance of the successions, from 1619. vntill this present yeare, 1622. At the end whereof, is annexed a reuiew of a later edition, by him stolne into the world. 1621. By Augustine Vincent Rouge-croix Pursuiuant of Armes<\/em>. (London, William Jaggard, 1622) STC 24756. This ingenious title responds to Brooke\u2019s work of 1619, the revised, \u201cstolne\u201d edition of 1621, but also to Brooke\u2019s attack on Camden of years earlier.<\/span>\r\n\r\n[ii]<\/a> Jaggard\u2019s response, which occupies six folio pages in a section simply labeled \u201cThe Printer\u201d, places the fault clearly with Brooke.\u00a0 He explains how he carefully filed Brooke\u2019s notes and held regular communication with the author even during Brooke\u2019s sickness. See Vincent, A discouerie of errours<\/em> (para 3r-7r).\u00a0 For a recent account of the Brooke-Jaggard affair, with particular attention to its insight on early modern editorial procedures, see Anthony Grafton, The Culture of Correction in Renaissance Europe<\/em>. The 2009 Panizzi Lectures (London: The British Library, 2011), 144-147<\/span>","_et_gb_content_width":"","_mc_calendar":[],"footnotes":"","_links_to":"","_links_to_target":""},"class_list":["post-500","page","type-page","status-publish","hentry"],"aioseo_notices":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.huronresearch.ca\/multiplecopies\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/500","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.huronresearch.ca\/multiplecopies\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.huronresearch.ca\/multiplecopies\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.huronresearch.ca\/multiplecopies\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.huronresearch.ca\/multiplecopies\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=500"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.huronresearch.ca\/multiplecopies\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/500\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.huronresearch.ca\/multiplecopies\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=500"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}