1. The regal union of Scotland and England deriving from James VI/I’s inheritance of the English crown in 1603, no doubt, provoked an existential crisis for many Scotsmen and Englishmen alike. These were citizens of two very different nations, with their own histories and cultural traditions, who had a centuries-old record of mutual mistrust, antagonism, and occasional warfare, only partially ameliorated by the Protestant orientation of both. How, now, were they to regard themselves? In various ways, attempts to cope with this crisis have left a mark in the literary record. It is not difficult, for example, to imagine that many English readers interpreted the new edition of William Camden’s Britannia that appeared in 1607 as addressing this issue, inasmuch as Camden took great pains to show how the English people was already an amalgam of various ethnic groups which had been progressively and successfully fused into a single whole, a valuable lesson reassuringly pointing the way to the possibility of union of these two previously independent peoples. On the Scottish side, no writer addressed the issue more explicitly, or in greater detail, than David Hume of Godscroft [1548 - 1630?], both in prose and poetry.
2. Hume wrote, more or less simultaneously, a pair of tracts De Unione Insulae Britannicae and a series of poetic meditations on the union, couched as allegorical eclogues, published under the titie Daphn-Amaryllis. The first De Unione tract was printed at London in 1605 (and was later reprinted by Hume’s son James in a volume entitled Davidis Humi Wedderburnensis Poemata Omnia. Accesere ad finem Unio Britannica et Praelium ad Lipsiam soluta oratione, issued at Paris in 1639). In it, Hume seeks to allay the reservations of doubting Scotsmen (including, very possibly, himself) by expatiating on the advantages of unification, and (for example, pp. 64/65ff.) by noting possible objections and parrying them. In the second tract he sketches a blueprint for an ideal new nation, the chief characteristic of which is an exact parity between its English and Scottish components: it will have its capital at York, will have a Parliament with equal representation by both peoples, a double-staffed administration, and so forth. It is even legislated that the king must visit Scotland at least one every three years. This vision differed so greatly from the actual Great Britain created by James that it must have been deemed unprintable, so the second tract has only been published in modern times, by Paul J. McGinnis and Arthur H. Williamson in their highly welcome The British Union: A Critical Edition and Translation of David Hume of Godscroft’s De Unione Insulae Britannicae (Aldershot, 2002: the reader should be advised that all translations of, and page-references to, this work are indebted to this edition — the double-page citation of Hume’s text is because this edition has Latin and English texts on facing pages).
3. As can be seen from the printing history given below, the four eclogues of Daphn-Amaryllis were published seriatim as they were written during the period 1603 - 1605, in such a way that I appeared in 1603, II in 1603 or 1604 (no copy of the original edition survives), III in 1604, and IV in 1605 (for the history of these volumes and a highly illuminating discussion of their contents see also Christopher Upton, Studies in Scottish Poetry, diss. St. Andrews, 1986, pp. 272 - 92) The first tract of De Unione, was printed in 1605, and the British Library manuscript of the second tract bears a note that Hume completed it on August 2, 1605. Near the beginning of the second tract (pp. 142/143) Hume quotes Eclogue IV.61ff., which establishes that Daphn-Amaryllis had already been finished when he began it. There is no similar evidence for the first tract, so “more or less simultaneously” is the most that can be said about its chronological relation to the poetry (see also McGinnis and Williamson p. 48). Certainly, both works come from the same period in Hume’s life, when the union was a fresh development and he was brooding on its social and political implications and the kind of new nation it ought to create. Therefore, I believe, the reader should not look for any overall unity or overarching scheme in these eclogues, since they were written sequentially in reaction to unfolding events. Thus, most significantly, an optimism about Scottish-English equality in the union that could reasonably have been felt in 1603 had been replaced by the pessimism expressed in Eclogue IV.
4. Hume’s eclogues are allegorical, and require decipherment. According to Upton p. 272, 'The first publication of the Daphn-Amaryllis does not appear to have been a particularly happy event for poet, printer or public, and Hume had a lot of explaining to do when Field reprinted them. In the light of general puzzlement and dissatisfaction, it is perhaps understandable that he over-explained.” Fortunately for a modern editor as well as a contemporary reader, he himself provides plenty of surrounding material instructing the reader on how this is to be done, so much of the volume is self-explanatory. Here I should like to focus on some of the major themes of Daphn-Amaryllis which do require a bit more consideration. These are 1.) The Lion; 2.) The Project; and 3.) the major dramatis personae of the eclogues.
5. Running through the eclogues is the image of the lion. The paramount importance of this image is shown by its appearance on the title page of one of the 1605 editions (Hume’s son James understood the centrality of this lion, since he also displayed it on the title page of the Jacobaea portion of his 1639 volume, and it is also used on the dust jacket of the modern edition of De Unione). In the second tract of De Unione Hume recommends the use of this lion as the emblem of the newly unified Britain (pp. 162/163ff.). As McGinnis and Williamson explain (pp. 41f.):
The British coat of arms would be the Scottish lion rampant, but the Scottish lion conflated with the prophetic lion of the north, and conflated in turn with the lion of Judah. Its form was simple enough: Hume would merely remove the double tressure that always surrounded the Scottish lion. Unenclosed and thus unbounded, Hume’s emblem was intended to speak unambiguously of expansion and mission. The device itself had originated in the later fifteenth century at a particularly aggressive moment during the reign of James III...But where James III’s unencumbered lion symbolized the pursuit of a commonplace dynastic empire, Hume’s Judaic-British lion articulated a very different project, at once eschatological and reforming. Hume’s British motto would be “Lesser than Judah” (meaningly only lesser to Judah) or “Serving Judah, Ruling the Rest,” and its implications were unmistakable. Britain would fulfill the promise of the Hebrew commonwealth, effectively the promise of the Old Testament.
But these observations fail to capture the complexity of the lion imagery as it is employed in Daphn-Amaryllis, insofar as in the course of Hume’s eclogues the lion image is applied, not only to the newly unified Britain, but also to James personally. If the new Britain was to be a latter-day Davidic kingdom, in Hume’s poetry the equation is carried further, and James is identified as a latter-day David.
6. But what is this lion for? What is it expected to do? In his second tract (pp. 260/261f.) Hume argues that nothing would be more effective for unifying the two peoples than joining to engage in a great, adventurous national project:
Certe non frater fratris, non quisquam cuiusquam tam amans est, nisi etiam socius idem sit. Unde mihi res accuratius expendenti primum hoc inter mortales vinculum videtur, ut sine quo non constet ulla amicitia, et forte nec constare possit, quippe quod omnibus se immisceat, ut omnia percurras. Sed non ago subtilius, nec dilatare rem opus, quae quotidiana experientia sic constat. Hoc tantum hic curandum, ut in bono facinore sit, cuius solius honesta societas est, et societas dicenda; aliae conspirationes potius. Sed et in magno et digno: cur enim ad minuta demittimur magni animi? Cur ad indigna dignitatis apex? Si autem tale sit, honestum, magnum, facile hoc quoque admiserimus. Totis in id viribus incumbendum. Quo non aliud ad vitandas domesticas turbas efficacius; dum bonis ipsa exercitatione conformantur, magnis occupantur et adimplentur animi, nec volent, nec vacent ad alia et deteriora se divertere.
[“Without a community of interests there’s no such thing as brotherly love or even friendship between one person and another. In my opinion this seems to be the most important bond among human beings. Without it friendship cannot exist and probably cannot last where it already exists, which is clearly because it intermingles itself in everything. But there’s no need to belabor the point. It’s only necessary to take care that we engage ourselves in a common cause, an achievement towards which a community of interests is properly directed. Nothing else will suffice. Nor will we settle for something less noble and significant. Why should we dedicate our talents and our powers to goals unworthy of us? If it be such an achievement, something noble, significant, worthwhile, then there can be no exertion which may be too great to expend on its accomplishment. It will be easy for us to say that we ought to undertake it with all the power and energy we have.”]
7. It is tolerably clear from the second tract of De Unione, and considerably more so from Daphn-Amaryllis, what this national project is supposed to be. Most explicitly, in the Argument to Eclogue II Hume writes:
Et ne discrepent caetera (postquam intemeratam publicam laetitiam in Iacobi regis adventu, cedente etiam suo luctu Amaryllide, cecinerit) hoc tota ecloga agitur ut pietatem inculcet propagandam, sublatis imperiorum monstris et illo Turcico, et hoc Romano. Itaque ad id viam innuit...adminicula exterorum regum et populorum (quis enim per se suffecerit?) qui magis idonei, aut minus alieni sint. Qualis gallus leoni nostro, foedere iunctus: multis modis utilis, aequitatu imprimis pollens. Natura antiquae simplicitatis, verax, apertus, et plane cui fidas. Qualis Haliaeetus, aquilarum princeps, si quando solem iustitiae et verae religionis lucem aquilinis oculis intueri sustineat. Tum reliqui Germaniae principes, inferiores quidem illi, sed quorum alis et tollitur haliaeetus, et nititur; quique leoni, easdem illas suas alas conferre non minus possunt, et vel ipsum in eum locum, imperii nempe fastigium, erigere. Itaque illud infra,
Dum patriae ingentem prisca virtute leonem,
et ad Scotiae regis insignia tanquam typum aliquem referendum est, et praecipue ad verum illum vere ingentem tribus Iehudae, vere victorem, omnia domantem, victrici lauro semper insignitum et insigniendum, quem NEMO IMPUNE LACESSAT, cui cedant omnia: sol, luna serviat, et vere submissi lambant vestigia reges.
[“And, lest the rest be out of keeping with this (after he has sung of the uncontrollable public joy at the arrival of James, with Amaryllis and our grief over her fading into the background), throughout this entire eclogue he conducts himself so as to instill a piety that should be promoted when those two empires have been destroyed, the one Turkish and the other Roman. Therefore he indicates a way to achieve this...by the assistance of foreign kings and peoples (for who can suffice by himself?), of the kinds that are more useful and less alien to ourselves. Such is the cock to our lion, joined as he is by league: useful in many ways and particularly powerful with his mounted forces. In his nature, he is marked by old-time simplicity, he is truthful, candid, and patently a beast you can trust. Such would be the eagle, that prince of birds, if someday he becomes able to behold the sun of justice and the Light of true religion with his eagle eyes. Then we have the other princes of Germany, indeed a lesser breed, but the eagle is borne aloft and soars thanks to their wing, and they are no less capable of donating those wings of theirs to the lion, and lifting it up to the same place, namely to the pinnacle of empire. Therefore my verse, while the great national lion with its old-time virtue can be applied to the emblem of the King of Scots as a prefiguring type, and particularly to that genuine and great tribe of Jehudah, truly victorious, all-dominating, always distinguished and ever to be distinguished by the victor’s laurels, a tribe which NO MAN HARMS WITH IMPUNITY, to which all things defer: may the sun and moon serve it, and truly may subject kings kiss the ground upon which he has walked.”]
At various points in both De Unione and Daphn-Amaryllis Hume speaks of British territorial expansion. Although he never makes the connection, surely he regarded such expansion as the result of the Project recommended here.
8. Translated into more realistic terms, Hume was advocating that the Spanish War should be revived, that Britain and her erstwhile allies France and the Protestant German states — astonishingly, he ignores the Netherlands, unless he regarded that nation as part of Germany — should enter into a new phase in which, under the leadership of James, Great Britain and her allies would carry the war to their enemies’ homelands, and that Britain should reap the reward for this effort by helping herself to some unspecified territorial acquisitions on the Continent, at the expense of defeated Catholic nations. And then, after the Catholic powers had been disposed of, this James-led coalition could go on to make war on the Turks (cf. the Argument to Eclogue II and Epigram 6). This proposal was wildly unrealistic, for two reasons. In the first place, the timing for his proposal could not have been worse: the War had lately been ended by the Treaty of London, signed in August 1604, and Hume must have had a very poor understanding of his English compatriots if he imagined that, after nineteen years of warfare, they had any further stomach for fighting (his Scottish compatiots never did have any: under James’ leadership, Scotland had assiduously avoided any involvement in the conflict). In the second, it was no less unrealistic to expect that King James, whose military record was limited to a small number of punitive expeditions within Scotland, could or would want to transform himself into a great warrior-king capable of eclipsing Julius Caesar (Epigram 6). Nevertheless, it is striking that in the course of a lengthy poem on the anticipated arrival of James in Scotland in 1619 Hume can still be found exhorting the king to lead an anti-Catholic campaign on the Continent, and even in an epigram written on the occasion of James’ death in 1625 he expresses the hope that King Charles will involve Britain in the Thirty Years’ War (an idea still in play in his 1629 poem on Charles’ anticipated visit to Scotland).
9. It is, perhaps, surprising that in casting around for some suitably ambitious national project Hume did not think of the great national adventure that did distinguish James’ reign, the settlement of America. At the time Daphn-Amaryllis was written, there had been two failed experiments in establishing a foothold in the New World (Newfoundland and Roanoke), and the little Wiapoco colony in Guyana, founded in 1604, was likewise doomed to future failure. Nevertheless, talk of America was very much in the air and one did not have to be very prescient to assume that similar efforts at settlement would continue until a successful lodgement had been gained. Then too, it had been an important war aim to break the Spanish monopoly on the New World: American gold had fueled the Spanish empire and disrupted the traditional balance of power in Europe, and nothing could be clearer than that the future prosperity of Great Britain and her principal allies depended on their gaining a share of New World wealth. The reason that such a project did not occur to Hume was, no doubt, that prior to the 1629 settlement of Nova Scotia American exploration and settlement had been an exclusively English enterprise, so that a Scottish observer failed to grasp its possibilities.
THE CHARACTERS IN THE ECLOGUES
10. Daphnis quite simply is James, nothing more needs be said about him. As Hume states in the Argument to Eclogue III, Phyllis...Scotia est, Amaryllis primum Angliae regina, postea regnum [“Phyllis...is Scotland, Amaryllis is first the Queen of England, and then her realm.”] More explicitly, Amaryllis is identifiable as Elizabeth in the first two eclogues and part of the third, but beginning at III.121ff. she is transformed into a representative of England, and so she remains for the remainder of the volume:
Hinc coniugiis nymphaeque deaeque
Certant sollicitare suis. Amarylli, relicta
Pulchrior es quantum tu Phyllide. Deiopeia
Tam tibi se praefert, tam se Galataea, capillis,
Auro crispatis Indo.
[“Just as much as you are fairer than the Phyllis he has abandoned, Amaryllis, so much does Deiopeia prefer herself to you, and and also Galataea, her hair adorned by gold of the Indies.”]
11. In reading the fourth eclogue, one gains the distinct sense that all is not well in Hume’s British Arcadia. We have been told (III.153ff.):
Hic (Lycida) potuisse illam plus hiscere credis?
Defecit. Vix Alcippe sub tecta reduxit
Et Beroe, simul occurrit dubitare fidelis
An foret, an tanti securus Daphnis amoris.
Nunc tenuis vitae spes, postquam Doris et undas
Iuratus Nereus memorem testantur, et illam
Adscisci in thalami partem, natosque receptos
Communem in caulae curam communis, ut id vult
Depositis satis aequa odiis Amaryllis, et ultro
Invitans sponsi in cunctos conspiret honores.
[“At this point, Lycidas, do you imagine she can utter any more? She has run out of words. Scarcely had Alcippe and Beroe brought her home when it occurred to her to doubt whether Daphnis is faithful, or whether he is indifferent to her great love. Now there is a slender hope for her life, after Doris and Nereus, lord of the sea, have sworn that he is mindful of her, that she has been summoned to be the partner of his bedchamber, and that their sons have been recruited to help care for their sheepfold, shared in common, and how this was Amaryllis’ wish after she had very fairly set aside her hatred, freely inviting her to have a share in all her bridegroom’s honors.”]
12. In the passage just cited we are assured that England is wholly reconciled to union with Scotland. But when we turn to Eclogue IV we discover that relations between the two nymphs are not so friendly (IV.25ff.). Amaryllis disdains Phyllis and wants to monopolize Daphnis, which devastates the resentful Phyllis:
Pulchrior, et nymphis formosior omnibus una,
Si Tamesis liquidas speculata Amaryllis ad undas
Concepit fastus nimios, nigramque vocavit
Phyllida, nec timuit Nemesin, nec Daphnidis iram.
At se Phyllis amat, quamvis sit fusca, sibi sat
Strenua, nec natum piget nec nominis illam.
Sed si, Daphni, vocas, iunctae si gloria caulae,
Non ultra natum meminit, non nominis illa.
Audiit, et sibi componi indignata, refugit,
Atque iterum speculum respexit, et “heus,” ait, “an me
Ponere me, nomenque coegeris? O bone Daphni,
Desine. Non nostro certet tua Phyllis honori.”
Tityre, tuque ingens Alcon, seu cernere cestu,
Sive in graminea cursu sudare palaestra,
Cernitis haec, vosque (o!) alii, queis Graecia nullos
Praeferat, et nullos, queis prisca Amaryllis alumnos.
Ocnus ubi est? Ubi dius Ias, soloque minores
Daphnide, seu cantu, seu decertare cicuta
Phylligenae? Vos haec sic spernit? At enthea virtus
Consecrat, et magno magnos dignatur Olympo.
Vidi ego cum peteret, quos nunc fastidit, et ultro
Compellans blandis mulceret Phyllida dictis.
Vidi ego cum multis sponderet munera verbis,
Forsitan et veris oneraret sydera votis.
Quid miremur opes, luxum aut laudemus inertem?
Quid formae periensve decus, pexosve capillos?
Es formosa, Amarylli, at spernere inania disce.
Saepe sub hirsuta virtus latet ardua fronte.
At neque tam informis, nec discolor ista; sororem
Quin noscas. Natos, Rheni si cernis ad undas,
Iures esse tuos: vultu, parilique vigore,
Ipsique inter se nota se voce salutant.
She is fairer, and uniquely lovelier than all the girls, even if famous Amaryllis, living alongside the clear waters of the Thames, has conceived great pride in herself, calling Phyllis swarthy and having no fear of Nemesis or the wrath of Daphnis.
But Phyllis, dark as she may be, loves herself and is sturdy enough for her own purposes, nor has she any regret for her sons or her name. But, Daphnis, if you and the glory of a united sheepfold summon her, she will no longer remember either her sons or her name.
Amaryllis has heard him, and, thinking it unworthy of herself to be placed in this arrangment, she has fled. Looking at herself in the mirror once more, she says, “Alas, do you compel me to lose myself and my name? Oh cease, good Daphnis. Let not your Phyllis vie with my honor.”
Tityrus, and you, huge Alcon, whether you are striving to be the more distinguished with your fists or to work up a sweat running on your grassy field of competition, and you others, men to whom Greece can prefer none of her own, nor whom old Amaryllis can match with any of her children, do you see these things?
Where’s Ocnus, and where’s divine Ias, Phyllis-born men who are second only to Daphnis when it comes to competing in song or with the reed? Is Amaryllis scorning you thus? But your divine virtue consecrates you and makes you great men, worthy of great Olympus.
I saw her when she was wooing these men she now disdains, and was taking the lead in speaking to Phyllis, trying to sway her with sweet words. I saw her when she was vowing gifts with many a word, and assaulting the stars with prayers which were, perhaps, genuine.
Why should we admire her wealth, or praise her idle luxury? Why should we admire the glory of her beauty, destined to perish, or her neatly-coifed hair. Amaryllis, you are pretty, but you must learn to scorn vain things. Often high virtue lies concealed behind a shaggy face.
But she’s not so ugly or so discolored that you can’t acknowledge she’s your sister. If you saw her sons alongside the waters of the Rhine, you’d swear they were your own: they are of equal appearance and vigor, and when they are among themselves they greet each other in a language familiar to you.”]
12. I quote this passage at such length because it not only reveals Amaryllis’ continuing disdain for Phyllis, but explores the reason for it. Again deciphering the allegory, England is rejecting the kind of full equality with Scotland espoused by Hume, alleging Scottish cultural backwardness, an accusation to which he offers a heated rebuttal in the first tract of De Unione (pp. 80/81ff.) Here, I would venture to say, there is more at stake than first meets the eye. Some Englishmen, to be sure, no doubt did harbor such an attitude towards the Scots, and Englishmen must have been alarmed by the the episodes of violence and the political instability that marred the minority of James VI. But it is likely that what was troubling Hume was something entirely different. The idea for (and also the actual name of) Great Britain can be traced back to a Scottish work, the Historia Maioris Britanniae tam Angliae quam Scotiae by John Mair (Major), printed at Paris in 1521. The Cambridge-educated Mair had a conspicuously friendly attitude towards England, and argued that the union of Scotland and England under a single sovereign was desirable, but conceded that, in view of Scottish cultural inferiority, England should play the dominant role in the resulting political structure. Mair’s history was familiar to Hume, as it presumably was to any educated Scotsman — at one point he recalls having read the book as a boy — and this attitude no doubt rankled. It is likely that when he addresses this issue in both De Unione and Daphn-Amaryllis he is arguing against Mair just as much as against contemporary English opinion.
13. Nevertheless, obviously, the latter part of Daphn-Amaryllis represents a cri de coeur that the reality of James’ Great Britain was turning out so differently than Hume’s idealistic vision of Scottish-English parity. I have already quoted III.153ff., in which Phyllis is in a state of collapse because she believes Daphnis has abandoned her. She is consoled by the thought that (III.166ff.),
Ante iterum frondes quam ponat fraxinus, ante
Messor quam segeti falces immiserit, ipsum
Affore, siccantem lachrimas et lumina Daphnim
Forsitan, et magnos missuram Amaryllida natos.
[“[They swear”] that Daphnis himself will, perhaps, be present before the ash tree sheds its leaves, before the reaper puts his scythe to the crop, drying her tears and her eyes, and that Amaryllis will be sending her great sons.
But Daphnis does not come back to Phyllis, and James did not return to Scotland until 1617: Phyllis’ suspicions that she is being abandoned are all too true, and James ruled Scotland from London with his pen. On the showing of Eclogue IV, it would appear that Hume attributes this neglect of his native country to supposed contempt for Scottish backwardness, although he forbears to investigate how James, himself a Scotsman, could have come to share this attitude.
14. Finally, we have Moeris, the principal singer in Eclogue III, having Celiovedus as a second name, who represents Hume himself. Hume explains the names in the Argument to Eclogue III:
Celiovedus, minimus et ignotus quisque, ut et ipse auctor, qui idem et Moeris, illa voce inutilitatem innuente (ex celi et oved Hebraea compositione, quasi vas perditum aut fractum dicas), hoc ob ipsum maestitiam, Latina etymologia.
[“Celiovedus (who is the same as Moeris) represents every humble and unknown poet, such as is the author, as is hinted at by his name, which indicates his uselessness, being compounded out of the Hebrew words celi and oved, as if you were to say “a ruined or broken vessel), and for this very reason he is called Moeris by a Latin etymology, because of his very sorrow.”]The name Moeris is derived from maereo, “to feel sorrow,” and its derivative maeror (“sorrow”). The image of a broken pot, pitcher, or earthen vessel appears frequently in the Bible, but this verbal formappears only in Psalm 31:12, where the context is important: “I am forgotten, as a dead man out of minde: I am like a broken vessell.” In Lusus Poetici, at 11.289 he uses the same image to describe his unhappy condition before he married Barbara Johnstone and before the birth of his son Aselcane (see the commentary note ad loc.). But we can only guess why (except as a display of Christian humility) Hume presents such a negative self-appraisal in Daphn-Amaryllis. Possibly, as a descendent of a long line of warriors (as we are reminded in epigrams about his ancestors in Lusus Poetici), it troubled him that he was not a man of action such as they had been.
15. I append a printing history of the four eclogues and what eventually grew to be the ten epigrams of Daphn-Amaryllis, together with the abbreviations used to cite them on the textual notes page:
E1 Daphn-Amaryllis (printed by P. Waldgrave, Edinburgh, 1603) is a short volume of seven pages, containing Eclogue I only, with a very short dedication to King James (Appendix here), and with no Argument or other explanatory material, and with an appended poem Legi nascentem de nata Amaryllide by Andrew Melville (Appendix here). Note: Since the next extant volume identifies itself as “the third part of Daphn-Amaryllidis” and contains Eclogue III, it is plausible to think that a similar volume, devoted to Eclogue II, was published in 1603 or 1604, but that no copy has survived. The correctness of this surmise is guaranteed by Hume’s mention of a prior editio in the Admonitio de Echo appended to that Eclogue in the 1605 London edition.
E2 Moeris. Daphn-Amaryllidis, Pars Tertia (printed by Thomas Finlason, Edinburgh, 1604) is a somewhat more elaborate volume that presents Eclogue III (without any annotation) preceded by a dedicatory epistle to King James (Appendix here) and an Argument, and followed by samples of the poet’s youthful poetry and a set of six epigrams.
L Two editions of Daphn-Amaryllis (both printed by Richard Fields, London, 1605). The single thing that distinguishes these editions is their different title pages: one features Humes’ emblematic lion of Jehudah, with an inscription directly below referring to that animal, whereas the other has a device of an anchor with ANCHORA SPEI written around it, but, somewhat irrationally, retains the same inscription about the lion. Although bibliographers register these as two editions, for present purposes we may regard them as one, inasmuch as they present identical readings: their page-divisions are the same, as are the errors they contain (some examples are marcessere for marcescere in the dedicatory epistle, παρὰ τὸ for παρὰ τοῦ and inquam for unquam in the Argument to Eclogue II, III.218 decidite for decedite, and IV.45 nuuc for nunc) and neither presents any textual feature absent from the other. Both editions imitate E2 in following Eclogue III with the same samples of Hume’s youthful work, and by same six epigrams, after which they add Eclogue IV. (Arthur Williamson suggests to me that the display of the Scottish lion may have been offensive to conservative Englishmen and so was replaced by the unobjectionable anchor of faith. Perhaps this was done during the course of a single press run, so that it is unnecessary to distinguish two editions).
A Arthur Johnston (ed.), Delitiae Poetarum Scotorum (Amsterdam, 1637) pp. 417 - 430. Contains the initial Ad Lectorem and the texts of all four Eclogues, with the echo effect omitted and accompanied by none of the introductory or explanatory material. Introduces some corrections of the 1605 text.
P Dr. James Hume (ed.), Davidis Humi Wedderburnensis Poemata Omnia. Accesere ad finem Unio Britannica et Praelium ad Lipsiam soluta oratione (Paris, 1639), in a section entitled Jacobaea with its own title page and separate pagination (pp. 4 - 48). Contains a full text of all four Eclogues (with echo effects) and full introductory and explanatory material, prefaced by previously unpublished material by Andrew Melville (Appendix here). Otherwise this is a reprint of the London edition, save that Eclogue IV is placed directly after Eclogue III, with the epigrams added at the end (and son James adds four new epigrams, two of which are reproduced here and two of which do not warrant inclusion in this edition because they are thematically unrelated and pertain to a different historical context, and so are reserved for publication elsewhere). James has added a couple of extra explanatory sidenotes and (as with his text of Lusus Poetici) censored or toned down some of his father’s more outspoken anti-Catholic sentiments, replacing offending words with asterisks.
16. The present edition is based L, save that I imitate James Hume in placing the epigrams after rather than before Eclogue IV. James added four epigrams to those printed in 1605. The first two of these are thematically harmonious with Daphn-Amaryllis and so are included here. But the latter two are not, and, I believe they were written earlier than the union of the two kingdoms and represent reactions to an entirely different historical situation. I therefore have not included them here, reserving them for publication elsewhere. Transcripts of textual material contained in other editions but not in L are given in a special Appendix. I should like to thank Jamie Reid Baxter, Wout van Bekkum, and Arthur Williamson for their help and encouragement while I was working on this project.