The provenance of MS78, held here at Middle Temple Library, continues to be a mystery. This is a handwritten manuscript labelled ‘The Use of Passions’, for which neither its author nor the date of composition can be definitively ascertained. More puzzling still is the list of 91 ‘Italian books’ written in a different hand on the first three leaves of the manuscript.
A previous blogpost has already reflected on these issues.
The main text in MS78 has been identified as an English translation of Jean-François Senault’s De l’Usage des Passions (published in 1641), a treatise in two parts which synthesizes the Augustinian and Neostoic moral traditions and aims to instruct mankind in the correct management of emotions (or ‘passions’). An English translation of this treatise was published in 1649, with a second (and largely identical) edition produced in 1671.[1] These were done by Henry Carey, 2nd Earl of Monmouth (1596-1661), well-known for translating various works by Italian political theorists and closely associated with the royalist publisher Humphrey Moseley, who himself published the 1649 translation of The Use of Passions.
Incidentally, it has been a common mistake to identify Senault’s translated Use of Passions with Walter Charleston’s Natural History of the Passions (1674), despite an article refuting this over sixty years ago (see Hunter and Cuttler 1958). However, the British Library does hold a reprinted translation of Senault’s text, published in 1772 as The Philosophy of the Passions, including a rewritten translation of the author’s preface in which reference is made to John Locke’s writings on morality.[2]
Setting aside the obvious issue of authorship, the existence of MS78 raises several questions regarding its relationship to the printed translation: Was the manuscript created in preparation for Carey’s published translation or as a separate endeavour? Do both texts follow similar structures or are there significant differences between them? Does the manuscript comprise the entirety of the printed text or only a section thereof? How does the marginalia compare across the two versions?
A general comparison between MS78 and the 1649 translation provides partial answers. To begin with, the manuscript comprises 93 folios with only two blank pages (184 pages total). By contrast the printed translation comprises 510 pages of text. At first glance, there seems to be a significant disparity between the manuscript and printed texts. However, what is needed is a more sustained comparison between the dimensions of each version, the number of lines per page and size of the handwriting, not to mention of the content itself, to determine whether this initial impression is correct.
Each text is structured in two parts and contains 11 treatises and 53 discourses. The organisation of these sections is the same in each version. In addition, both the main text in MS78 and in the printed edition utilise almost exactly similar headings. There are slight variations in the use of specific phrases, especially in the headings of Part 2. Here, the printed version sometimes contains further elaborations upon the ‘passions’ under discussion (for example the discourse ‘Of the good use of Love by Charity and Friendship’, which in MS78 is labelled simply ‘Of the good use of Love’)[3], or varies in terminology (for example ‘grief’ instead of ‘payne’ as in MS78).[4] These are, however, only minor differences.
The close similarity of the headings seems to indicate that the manuscript and printed texts correspond with each other, thus negating the initial impression of a disparity in page numbers. Both versions of The Use of Passions begin and end with the same phrase (with only minor inconsistencies in spelling common to the mid-17th century). Again however, it is necessary to examine the rest of the text more closely to determine whether the printed edition expands any of the material contained in MS78.
Some final observations can be made about the marginalia present in both text versions and the general appearance of the MS78 text. Perhaps unsurprisingly the printed text contains much more extensive marginalia, mainly consisting of Latin-language references to other works. While there are annotations in the margins of MS78, these are usually only individual words (mainly in English or French), letters or numbers, and these are difficult to relate to the text itself. MS78 has the appearance of a working draft, with several words crossed out or inserted throughout the text. Because this clearly worked-upon draft translation appears so similar to the printed text, it seems plausible that MS78 was written before the publication of the printed edition.
Happily (or perhaps unhappily?), much work still needs to be done regarding MS78 and it remains to be seen whether any of the suggestions offered here are borne out by this future research.
Alessandra Horton, King’s College London
April 2022
[1] J. Senault, The use of passions. VVritten in French by J.F. Senault. And put into English by Henry Earl of Monmouth. An. Dom. 1649 (London: Printed for J.L. and Humphrey Moseley, at the Prince’s Arms in St. Pauls Church-yard, 1649), and J. Senault, The use of passions written in French by J.F. Senault ; and put into English by Henry, Earl of Monmouth (London, Printed by W.G. for John Sims .., 1671).
[2] The Philosophy of the Passions, 2 vols. (London: Printed for J. Almon, opposite Burlington House, Piccadilly, 1772). See British Library, London, General Reference Collection 8405.g.22.
[3] Printed version: Part 2, first treatise, the third discourse, p. 223; MS78: Part 2, first treatise, the third discourse, fol. 43r.
[4] Printed version: Part 2, sixth treatise, the fifth discourse, p. 486; MS78: Part 2, sixth treatise, the fifth discourse, fol. 87r.
Middle Temple Library Blog 