free web hosting | website hosting | laptop computers | shopping cart | php hosting
affordable web hosting Pets web page hosting web hosting website hosting web hosting service web hosting web host

Manuscripts of the Verse of Henry Howard, Earl of Surrey

A. S. G. Edwards, in "Manuscripts of the Verse of Henry Howard, Earl of Surrey," reassesses the manuscript circulation of the works of this poet, which were mostly available in print within about a decade of his death. Edwards considers the motives for manuscript compilation in relation to the press in the early Tudor period. He describes changing conditions for the reception of Surrey's verse-political, geographical, literary, and musical-in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, identifies witnesses to the poet's canon, and transcribes an unnoticed lyric with the subscription "Finis E. of Surr." New investigation of the manuscripts of Surrey's verse would contribute important modifications to the canon of his poetry.

IN 1569 WILLIAM FORREST, quondam chaplain to Mary Tudor, and versifier of tireless appetite, produced an autograph presentation copy of his long (and still unpublished) verse "Life of the Patriarch Joseph." This copy, which survives as BL, Royal MS. 18. C. XIII, is dedicated to "the right highe and myghtye prynce Thomas Duke of Northefolke Earle of Surrey" by "wyllyam fforrest hys faithfull Orator." In his prologue Forrest pays tribute to Norfolk's father:

Callynge to mynde yeat better aduysement

Your noble ffather, Earle of Sur raye

Howe (in hys tyme) to Bookes he was bent

And also endytynge manye a vyrylaye,

In acceptacyon moste highe at this daye

(Fol. 2r)

The passage is among the earliest references to Henry Howard, Earl of Surrey as poet and to the literary esteem in which he was held ("In acceptacyon moste highe at this daye").1 It is an appropriate tribute in a manuscript intended for Surrey's son. Yet the form of Forrest's presentation copy is rather paradoxical. It replicates the putative original manuscript form of Surrey's verse, the circulation of his "endytynge manye a vyrylaye." Forrest's view was that manuscript was the appropriate form of transmission for his own work, and a suitable way to affirm the achievement of a poet whose reputation was established. But Surrey's "acceptacyon moste highe" depended not, in Forrest's day, on manuscript circulation. It depended primarily on print.

The circulation of the poetry of Henry Howard (1517-1547) in the sixteenth century points up the uneasy relationship between manuscript and print cultures at that time. Within a decade of Surrey's death, the appearance of Tottel's Songes andsonettes, Written by the ryght honorable Lorde Henry Haward late Earle of Surrey, and other (1557) gave him the titular central role in the creation of the early Renaissance English lyric corpus. It was a role that became firmly authorized with the remarkable popularity of Tottel's collection, which went through six separate printings in just eight years and several later ones.2 In addition, Tottel printed Surrey's translations of Virgil's Aeneid in the same year that Songes and sonettes initially appeared, thus making most of the poet's corpus available in print by 1557.3

Tottel was not the first to appreciate the potential of Surrey's work for the medium of print. John Day had already printed The fourth boke of Virgill for William Awen in 1554.4 Some of Surrey's translations of Ecclesiastes and the Psalms had been printed by Edmund Whitchurch in 1549-50.5 Moreover, several of his lyrics had already appeared in print during his own lifetime, albeit without attribution.6 The active and various interest in issuing printed forms of Surrey's verse may be contrasted with such interest in Wyatt's poetry, which appears to have first circulated in print in Tottel's Songes and sonettes.7 In the early sixteenth century, Wyatt's verse was primarily known, it seems, from substantial early manuscript collections, both holograph copies and transcripts made within Wyatt's circle.

I will return to some of these manuscripts below. Here it is sufficient to point out the contrast: within a few years immediately preceding and following his death, Surrey achieved a canonical status in print, the text of his works established in this medium in a relatively stable form that was passed down for nearly three hundred years. G. E Nott's pioneering edition in 1815-16 was the first to attempt to integrate knowledge of Surrey manuscripts into a consideration of his oeuvre. However, neither this edition, nor the twentieth-century editions by F. M. Padelford or Emrys Jones, has offered a comprehensive account of the manuscript sources for Surrey's works or their textual significance.8 And there has been only limited consideration of the implications of such manuscript evidence for scholarly understanding of the social and textual environments in which Surrey's poems circulated.9 It should be said at once that the materials for such an inquiry are meager. No more than about thirty manuscripts survive that contain any of Surrey's verse. The majority of these contain only single poems, and most of these survive in forms that date from considerably after Surrey's death, some more than a century after: only one or two copies can be dated with any confidence to Surrey's own lifetime.10 But the manuscripts that do survive deserve further attention. What follows is not a comprehensive assessment of the Surrey manuscript tradition; it is a survey of evidence for the circulation of his verse in scribal form that suggests some new directions for research.

That there was any substantial manuscript circulation of Surrey's verse seems largely due to a single figure, connected by circumstance to the destruction of Surrey and to the fortunes of the Howard family. Sir John Harington of Stepney (1520?-1580) was in service to Sir Thomas Seymour, who was active in the prosecution of the case against Surrey in 1547 and who was the chief recipient of Surrey's property after his death. Harington was subsequently imprisoned in the Tower in 1549 with Surrey's father, Thomas, Duke of Norfolk.11 He had been a member of Henry VIII's household and hence clearly had acquaintance with Surrey and others connected to his courtly and poetic circles. These connections have left to posterity the most substantial manuscript collections of Surrey's verse, BL, MS. Additional 36529 and the Arundel-Harington manuscript that is currently in the possession of the duke of Norfolk. While Harington seems a likely source for the contents of these books, his son, Sir John Harington of Kelston (1560-1612), the translator of Ariosto, took the leading role in compiling them. His is the most prominent hand in the Arundel-Harington manuscript and he seems to have assisted in assembling MS.Add.36529.12

Neither of these manuscript collections is exclusively or even primarily of Surrey's verse, but they are by far the largest of them. There are twenty-seven poems ascribed to Surrey in MS. Add. 36529, and the Arundel-Harington manuscript contains sixteen ascribed and three of uncertain authorship.13 In both manuscripts the poems are collocated in ways that insist on their authorial cohesiveness. In MS. Add. 36529 all of the Surrey lyrics occur on folios 50-57, and these are followed on folios 58v-65v by his paraphrases of the Psalms; they are all subscribed either "HS" or "ffmis H.S." These features seem to be indications that the Haringtons saw this body of verse as a corpus that should be distinguished from surrounding material. Thirteen of the poems in MS. Add. 36529 appear in the same order in the Arundel-Harington manuscript, albeit with some additional lyrics intercalated between folios 49 and 58. It is possible that the original body of Surrey's verse in the manuscript was originally much larger, since eleven leaves have been lost before folio 49, where the group of Surrey's poems begins.

It cannot be claimed, however, that the Haringtons' interest in Surrey, in relation to all of the materials in these two manuscripts, was dominant. In both, the quantity of Wyatt's verse far exceeds that of Surrey as a proportion of their total poetic output. But there is more particular evidence of the interest of both Haringtons in Surrey's poetry to be found elsewhere. Of the six manuscript versions of Surrey's "Martial Epigram" ("Marshall the thinges for to attayne"),14 three can be associated with the Haringtons. One copy appears in MS. Add. 36529; two further copies were made by Sir John Harington of Kelston and included in two manuscripts of his own verse (his fourth book of epigrams) made in the early seventeenth century, BL, MS. Additional 12049 and Folger Library, MS. V. a. 249. The elder Harington copied the lyric "Suche waiwarde wais hath love that most parte in discorde" into the manuscript of his fellow courtier of Henry VIII, George Blage, now Trinity College, Dublin, MS. 160 (the Blage manuscript), on folio i/Sr-v.15 He also copied a single lyric by Surrey ("The great Macedon that out of Perse chasyd") into BL, MS. Egerton 2711, on folio 85v.16 These separate acts of transcription by both Haringtons demonstrate further specific concerns for Surrey's lyric corpus.

Arundel-Harington and MS. Add. 36529 are the only manuscripts in which texts by both Surrey and Wyatt appear together in significant numbers. The other major collections of Wyatt's verse (Egerton 2711 and the Blake manuscript-mentioned above-and BL, MS. Additional 17492, the Devonshire manuscript) are centered on his corpus. As I have just noted, only a single Surrey poem appears in each of the first two manuscripts, added by Sir John Harington the elder. There is also just a single Surrey poem ("Oh happy dames that may embrace") on folio 55r-v in the Devonshire manuscript, copied in the hand of Mary Fitzroy, Surrey's sister.17

It seems striking that poetry by Wyatt and Surrey, who were contemporaries and who moved within the same courtly and literary circles, should have enjoyed such differing manuscript circulation, especially when the two authors are so closely associated in Tottel's Songes and sonettes. One can only speculate why this should have been so. Surrey's execution in the febrile atmosphere of Henry VIII's final days may have led to the destruction of copies or collections of his manuscript verse, possibly in the hands of those closest to the poet himself, who may have feared the taint of guilt by association. And the activities of Tottel and other early printers may have inhibited, at least to some degree, manuscript circulation. As it is, there is only one other manuscript in which Surrey and Wyatt's poems are conjoined-BL, MS. Harley 78, where three poems ascribed to Surrey (and one of uncertain authorship)18 appear alongside a larger number of Wyatt's lyrics. The manuscript is a composite one, containing both medieval and sixteenth-century material in verse and prose.19 The Surrey and Wyatt material is included in a distinct sequence of leaves originally numbered 1 through 26. What makes this book particularly intriguing is that the verse of both poets is located within larger biographical contexts. The beginning of the sequence of texts in this section is a prose "Declaration made by Sir Thomas Wiatt knight of his inocence" signed "TW" (fols. 5r-15r). This is followed by Anthony St. Leger's poem on Wyatt (fol. 15r) and by Surrey's epitaph on Wyatt ("W. resteth here," fol. 15v). Later, "The Erle of Surrye to the lordes of the councell at suche tyme as he was in the tower" appears (fol. 24r-v), and there are two Surrey poems alongside verses by Wyatt. The Surrey poems are "Of thie lyff Thomas this compass well mark" (fol. 29r) and another copy of "O happie dames that may embrace" (fol. 30v). The last seems to break off at the bottom of the verso after the first stanza: one can only wonder what else may have originally followed in this now fragmentary collection.

Even though the manuscript is defective, the attempt in Harley 78 to join the works of the two poets suggests that at least one early compiler was aware of the parallels between Wyatt and Surrey. Prose accounts of their confrontations with authority and their imprisonment are juxtaposed with poems on the death of Wyatt, including Surrey's own. The accumulation of materials here seems to reflect some consciousness of the biographical correspondences and connections between the two poets and to link biography to their poetry. But there is no further manuscript evidence of a contemporary sense of the relationship between the work of the poets. This is at least in part because the circulation of Surrey's own poems, as I have suggested, seems to have been highly circumscribed. Few poems in the Arundel-Harington manuscript or in MS. Add. 36529 enjoyed any wider circulation. Surrey's "Martial Epigram" was copied elsewhere and the single Surrey poems in the Wyatt collections Egerton 2711 and the Blage manuscript have already been described. I know of only one other poem from the Harington manuscripts that appears in another book. "Set me wheras the sonne dothe perche the grene" was copied into an early-seventeenth-century collection, BL, MS. Egerton 2230. Only the Haringtons appear to have had access to substantial exemplars; the sort of manuscript that Tottel must have used for the creation of Songes and sonettes did not, it seems, circulate widely. It was in this printed book, not in manuscripts, that a firm association between Wyatt and Surrey was first established.

Most of the remaining manuscript witnesses attest to the limited circulation of Surrey's verse in scribal forms. Besides the copies already discussed, I know of only one other manuscript, BL, MS. Cotton Titus A. XXIV, that contains more than one poem by Surrey. It has two poems, the "Martial Epigram" and a curtailed version of "Suche wayward wayes hath love," copied separately and without attribution.20 A scattering of isolated transcripts elsewhere may hint at Surrey's inclination to circulate separate poems in manuscript, sometimes in different forms. Surrey's "Martial Epigram" survives in six manuscript versions, as well as in some musical settings without complete texts. The multiple manuscript forms of this text contain variants suggesting that it was adapted, possibly by Surrey himself, for address to different audiences, some specific and individual and others quite general. Two versions, one in Trinity College, Cambridge and one in private hands, for instance, are flyleaf poems added to printed books, a form of circulation that suggests coterie transmission.21 They seem to reflect versions reshaped for different purposes and/or audiences and provide evidence of the adaptability of this lyric within various social environments.22

If the "Martial Epigram" provides testimony of the adaptability of Surrey's lyrics within various social environments, so, interestingly, do versions of some lyrics considerably removed in time and place from Surrey's original. For example, the lyric "If care do cause men cry, why do I not complain" is not found in the Harington collections. It does appear in Tottel's Songes and sonettes, and in two sixteenth-century English manuscripts, Bodleian Library, MS. Ashmole 176 and the Bray Lute Book (Beinecke Library, Yale, MS. Osborn Music 13). In the seventeenth-century Wemyss manuscript (National Library of Scotland, MS. Deposit 314, no.23), it is testimony to a wide, if fragmented, manuscript tradition. There it was copied by Margaret Wemyss, daughter of David, second earl of Wemyss (1610-1679), and carefully translated into Scots: the opening line reads "Giue cair does cas men cry quhy doe I not complain."23 However, it seems that it was the musical appeal of this lyric that resulted in its wider, and rather curious, circulation in seventeenth-century Scotland. Copies in musical settings were made by David Melvill in 1612 and by Robert Taitt, a schoolmaster of Lauder, Berwickshire, sometime between 1676 and 1689. Another copy was made about 1662 from a printed edition.24

Scottish interest in Surrey's poem points up the role that music played in the manuscript transmission of his verse. More than half of the manuscripts that contain versions of his poems consist of musical settings, usually without attribution and often accompanied only by the incipit, and usually single poems only, although three manuscripts contain the opening word or line of more than one: BL, MS. Royal App. 58 and MS. Additional 30513, and Public Record Office, London, MS. SP 1/246.25 Such musical settings may bring us closer to a particular courtly environment with which Surrey himself was doubtless intimately associated in his lifetime. It appears that in important respects Surrey's fragmented manuscript circulation led to his becoming integrated into an anonymous lyric tradition in which his words served only as accompaniment. The musical tradition thus demonstrates again the extent to which any posthumous sense of Surrey's poetic identity depended on print and the work of Tottel, rather than on any form of manuscript transmission, where he remains largely an occluded presence.

The extent of this occlusion is reflected by the scribal tradition that seems to underpin the transmission of Surrey's most substantial work, his translation of Virgil's Aeneid. The preface to the 1554 edition of The fourth boke of Virgill by John Day offers a tantalizing account of the difficulty of laying hands on Surrey manuscripts,

because I coulde vnderstand of no man that had a copy thereof, but he was more wyllyng the same should be kept as a priuate treasure in the handes of a fewe, then publyshed to the common profyt and delectacion of many.

In the end, Day was able to obtain one:

[M]y copy although it were taken of one, wrytten wyth the authors owne hande, was not yet so certaine, that it myghte be thought of itselfe sufficient to be publyshed, partly for that the writer had not tyme sufficient to the due examinacion thereof, after it was wrytten, and also because the reding of the authors copy thereof, by reason of speedye wrytyng thereof was somewhat doutful: for these causes, gettyng two other copies also, written out by other men, I caused myne to be conferred with them both, and of theym yt to be receiued, as most worthy to be alowed, which was bothe to the latyn moste agreable, and also best standing with the dignity of that kynde of mytre. (STC 24810q.5)

The circumstantial detail of Day's account, which indicates feelingly the difficulties of dealing with an author's draft, gives it credibility. He evokes a picture of the manuscript circulation of this work from the "copy ... kept ... priuate" to "the authors copy thereof" to the "two other copies also, written out by other men" that yields a glimpse of a textual world otherwise now wholly unrecoverable. All that survives to testify to manuscript circulation of Surrey's Aeneid translation is a single late-sixteenth-century copy, also of the fourth book, in BL, MS. Hargrave 205.26 Day's commentary is poignant testimony to this lost early manuscript tradition for Surrey's works.

For all the paucity of surviving materials, manuscripts of Surrey's poems do provide evidence that has been ignored in modern editions, all of which draw on the same limited range of sources, chiefly the Arundel-Harington manuscript and MS. Add. 36529. As it is represented by these editions, the canon of Surrey's verse remains problematic. A number of poems are securely ascribed, largely as a result of Tottel's work and that of other early printers, but the manuscript evidence raises a number of issues of attribution for which modern scholarship proves an uncertain guide. Some of the poems in the Blage manuscript point up the confusions about the canon. Kenneth Muir claims that there are three poems by Surrey in this manuscript; but two of these are followed only by the letter "H." This most probably signifies not Surrey but Sir John Harington the elder.27 Such an unreflective exercise in canon swelling can be fairly easily discounted. So can another that involves Harley 78. As I noted above, it contains three poems ascribed to Surrey that are clearly canonical as well as one that remains doubtful. But not all commentators have been willing to stop there. Ringler, for example, describes one poem in this manuscript as "more probably by Surrey [than Wyatt]."28 The poem is ascribed to neither in the manuscript.

If such attributions lack any evidential basis, it is even more striking that at least one poem actually ascribed to Surrey should have been ignored by commentators. This poem, in three six-line stanzas, occurs in Bodleian Library, Rawlinson. poet. 85, at folio 115v, where it was copied separately in a late-sixteenth or early-seventeenth-century hand:

The poem is unlike Surrey's established corpus in being a stanzaic lyric with a refrain. But its general style and tone give some support to the attribution.29

Such examples serve to suggest the ways in which manuscript evidence gives a slightly less defined sense of the Surrey canon than can be obtained from editions of his poem. The same can be said of the textual evidence from scribal copies. Obviously, it is not simply the case that there are variants, though it should be noted that a large number of the manuscripts now extant have not been examined by editors.30 This is only to be expected in manually transmitted texts. But the nature and scale of this variation at times suggest that some of Surrey's manuscripts may warrant much more consideration than they have received. I offer an illustration from Ashmole 176, which contains a version of Surrey's poem "If care do cause men cry, why do not I complaine," whose Scottish manuscript circulation was described earlier. This copy does not seem to have been previously examined. It is the only poem on folio 9r-v, written in a fluent cursive hand of the second half of the sixteenth century, with some italic features. The text contains numerous variants from the version in Tottel on which the text in modern editions has been based. This variation sometimes amounts to the rewriting of whole lines. In addition, after line 54 (in all modern editions) the following six lines occur in place of the ending as it appears in the text in Tottel:

For they that care doe knowe & haue felte what y^sup e^ trouble

When passed ys their payne eche ioy shall seme the double

What meanest thow my fortune thus fast from me to flee

Alas thowe art importunate to work thus cruellye

Thy crafte contynnewallye dothe cause me call & crye

Woe worthe the tyme that I to love my slefe [sic] dyd first apply.

(Bodleian, Ashmole 176, fol. 97v)

A more extensive analysis of the text of this poem is called for, not least because this manuscript is not the only evidence of radical variation between witnesses for this poem. In the version in the Bray Lute Book (fols. 22r-23r), the pairs of long lines have been reconstituted as quatrains. The text is shorter, limited to a version of lines 1-22, 25-26, and 24-25 (as they are numbered in modern editions).31

At the very least these variant versions-and others, like some of the texts of the "Martial Epigram"-would need to be assessed in any critical edition of Surrey's poems. But their chief significance probably does not lie in their potential to swell the textual apparatus of such an edition. More substantially, they provide testimony of the kinds of social pressures that shaped the circulation of Surrey's poems, pressures that may challenge the validity of a traditional critical edition. They suggest a degree of "versioning" shaped by unrecoverable social and textual circumstances in which Surrey himself was not necessarily involved.

If these examples suggest the need for further research, it must be acknowledged that, in general, Surrey is a rather frustrating subject for the student with some belief in the potential of manuscript study for the assessment of an author's texts. Few of his manuscripts can be dated within his lifetime; scribal copies thus tell us little about the circulation of Surrey's verse and the milieux in which it was read. And while there are occasional hints as to what has been lost, as in the case of the Aeneid translation, it seems possible that Surrey was much less sedulous than Wyatt in facilitating the development of collections of his verse while he was alive.32 It may be that many of his poems circulated piecemeal in his lifetime and that the circumstances of his death inhibited the posthumous assembling of any collections larger than those for which the Haringtons were responsible. The early publication of nearly all of his corpus was probably a further disincentive to large-scale copying.

Perhaps it is appropriate, in conclusion, to return to William Forrest, who copied out his praise of Surrey by hand more than twenty years after the elder poet's death. How and what Forrest knew of Surrey's verse cannot be determined. Did he perhaps have access to some family manuscript collection? Or did he know Surrey only through the stream of printed editions already in circulation? Our inability to answer such questions is one more demonstration of the enigmatic nature of the early manuscript circulation of Surrey's verse.


1 Surrey's reputation in the later sixteenth century lies outside my present concerns. But one notes the recent account by Stanley Wells of a manuscript in private hands copied by Wyatt's great-grandson William Scott, who observes that "no one surpassed Wyatt for prose or verse of comparable sweetness and fullness, saving my lord of Surrey"; see "By the placing of his words," Times Literary Supplement, 26 September 2003, 14-15.
2 The first edition of Songes and sonetles is STC 13860; there are other editions, all by Tottel, in 1557 (STC 13761, STC 13862); in 1559 (STC 13863, 13863.5, 13863.7); in 1565 (STC 13867); and in 1574 (STC 13866). There are later editions by Windet in 1585 (STC 13867) and by Robinson in 1587 (STC 13868).
3 Certain bakes of Virgiles Aeneis (London, 1557), STC 24798.
4 STC 24810a.5.
5 STC 2760.
6 His two poems on Wyatt's death occur in An excellent epitaffe of syr Thomas wyat, printed by John Herforde for Richard Toye (London, 1545?), STC 26054, A1r-v, D2v. In addition, his "Martial Epigram" was printed by William Baldwin in A treatise of morall phylosophie (London, 1547/8), STC 1253, Q1v.
7 I leave aside, for the present purposes, Wyatt's posthumous translations of the Psalms, published in 1549 (STC 2726), and the fragmentary and anonymous Boke of Balettes (STC 26053.5), published probably in the same year.
8 The Poems of Henry Howard Earl of Surrey, ed. F. M. Padelford (Seattle, 1920; revised, 1928); and Henry Howard Earl of Surrey Poems, ed. Emrys Jones (Oxford, 1964).
9 There have been few such discussions of Surrey's verse; see, however, Elizabeth Heale, "Women and the Courtly Love Lyric: The Devonshire MS (BL Additional 17492)," Modern Language Review 90 (1995): 296-313.
10 I gratefully acknowledge what will be readily apparent: my debt to Peter Beal's entry for Surrey in his magnificent Index of English Literary Manuscripts, Volume 1, 1450-1625, Part 2, Drayton-Wyatt (London, 1980), 535-41, where an enumeration of, and additional information about, most of the manuscripts discussed here can be found. Beal is not responsible for any conclusions I have drawn from his Index, but I am further grateful to him for discussion of Surrey's manuscripts.
11 These are the suggestions of Ruth Hughey, in her edition of The Arundel-Harington Manuscript of Tudor Poetry, 2 vols. (Columbus, Ohio, 1960), 1:63-64.
12 For a recent deft contextualization of the younger Harington's life and works, see Jason Scott-Warren, Sir John Harington and the Book as Gift (Oxford, 2001). Scott-Warren does not discuss Harington's interest in Surrey.
13 The canonical poems are Hughey, Arundel-Harington Manuscript, nos. 74-90; the uncertain ones, nos. 72-73, 298.
14 Generally I cite poems by their opening line or opening words. There is no complete, authoritative modern edition of Surrey. I usually follow Emrys Jones's edition, but for poems not included there I have cited texts from Padelford or Hughey.
15 Printed in Kenneth Muir, "Surrey Poems in the Blage Manuscript," Notes & Queries 205 (1960): 368-70.
16 See Richard Harrier, The Canon of Sir Thomas Wyatt's Poetry (Cambridge, Mass., 1975), 8.
17 See Heale, "Women and the Courtly Love Lyric"; and Raymond Southall, "Mary Fitzroy and 'O Happy Dames' in the Devonshire Manuscript," Renaissance English Studies, n.s., 45 (1994): 316-17.
18 "I that Vlysses yeres haue spent" is here ascribed to "H. S." (fol. 30v). It has not been invariably accepted as canonical. See Poems of Henry Howard Earl of Surrey, ed. Padelford, 215.
19 The material up to folio 15v and from folios 24V to 30v are in a single late-sixteenth-century hand; between this is a codicologically and scribally distinct body of unrelated material.
20 Printed in Hughey, The Arundel-Harington Manuscript, 2:93-94.
21 On flyleaf poems, see R. H. Robbins, ed., Secular Lyrics of the XIVth and XVth Centuries (Oxford, 1952), xxx-xxxi; and Julia Boffey, The Manuscripts of English Courtly Love Lyrics (Cambridge, 1985), 27-29.
22 See further A. S. G. Edwards, "Surrey's Martial Epigram: Text and Transmission," English Manuscript Studies (forthcoming).
23 I owe this reference to Professor Priscilla Bawcutt.
24 These copies are Library of Congress, Music Division, MS. PR 1105.117,1916c; University of California, Los Angeles, Clark Library, MS. T 135Z.B724,1677-89; and Perth, Sandeman Library, MS. N16 (no. I).
25 Sixteen manuscripts out of the approximately thirty Surrey manuscripts that survive have such settings. On musical settings and Surrey's verse in general, see I. L. Mumford, "Musical Settings to the Poems of Henry Howard, Earl of Surrey," English Miscellany 8 (1957): 9-20.
26 For a brief description, see Gladys D. Willcock, "A Hitherto Uncollated Version of Surrey's Translation of the Fourth Book of the 'Aeneid,'" Modern Language Review 14 (1919): 163-72 at 168-69.
27 Kenneth Muir, ed., Sir Thomas Wyatt and His Circle. Unpublished Poems Edited from the Blage Manuscript (Liverpool, 1961), 90; see also Muir, "Surrey Poems in the Blage Manuscript." These poems occur on folios 176v and 179V. Harrier, in The Canon of Sir Thomas Wyatt's Poetry, claims that there are only two poems of Surrey's in the manuscript (p. 66).
28 William A. Ringler Jr., Bibliography and Index of English Verse in Manuscript, 1501-1558 (London, 1992), 145, no. TM 898. The poem occurs on folio 27v.
29 There is another instance, this time in print, of lines that might find a place in the Surrey canon. Sir Richard Barckley's A discourse of the felicitie of man (1598), STC 1381, includes sixteen lines ascribed by Barckley to "the Earle of Surre," beginning "For with indifferent eyes,/My selfe can well discerne" (Kkir [p. 499]). See Michael Brennan, "The Badminton Manuscript of Sir Richard Barckley's A Discourse of the Felicitie of Man (1598)," English Manuscript Studies 6 (1997): 70-92, where he prints these lines in full (p. 84).
30 See Beal, Index of English Literary Manuscripts, 533-42.
31 I am greatly indebted to Dr. Stephen Parks of the Osborn Collection, Beinecke Library, Yale, for providing me with copies of the relevant pages from this manuscript.

[Author Affiliation]
A. S. G. Edwards is a professor of English Literature at the University of Victoria, British Columbia, and he specializes in late medieval and early modern book history. Among his recent publications is the collaborative revision of the Index of Middle English Verse.