The Embassy of Sir Thomas Roe to the Court of the Great Mogul 1.12
The Embassy of Sir Thomas Roe (Foster) 1.12
- Language
- English
1.12.1
It may be of interest to endeavour, before concluding, to trace the history of Roe's manuscripts and to note briefly the bibliography of his Journal. On the first of these two points, we have unfortunately but scanty evidence to go by. The original notes, we may suppose, were jotted down roughly from day to day, possibly on loose sheets, which would naturally be destroyed when they had served their purpose. The next step would be to have a fair copy made for the ambassador's use; and this seems to have been done in folio volumes, of which there must have been at least two (cp. p. 383). The first, containing the diary and letters to February 11, 1617, and further letters to October 9 of the same year, has survived, and forms the basis of the present text; the remaining volume or volumes have disappeared. As, apparently, the first part was available to Purchas (who says he copied most of the letters he gives "from Sir Thomas Roe's own book"), while the rest was not, we may conjecture that Roe had taken all but the first section to Constantinople. The volumes thus separated were never, it would seem, re-united; for when, in 1629, Roe wanted to refer to his Journal for some purpose, he was obliged to borrow the East India Company's copies. The first volume reappears for a short time at the beginning of the eighteenth century, when the editor of Churchill's *Voyages* (1704) republished Roe's Journal "with considerable additions ....
1.12.2
taken from his own original manuscript." It is true that he refers also to "a vast multitude" of letters "still preserved in two volumes," and this might appear to imply that he had seen not only the first but also the missing second volume. An examination of his text, however, shows that for events subsequent to February, 1617, he depends entirely on Purchas's version of the Journal; he goes no further than Purchas, and says that the rest is lost; and the letters he gives are all contained in the extant volume. A possible explanation is that the latter was at that time in two separate books, which have since been bound together.
1.12.3
From this date all trace of the MS. is lost for another century. In March, 1737, Richardson the novelist tendered to the newly-founded Society for the Encouragement of Learning the "original papers and letters of Sir Thomas Roe," offering to bear part of the expense of publishing them; but it is expressly noted by Carte the historian (who was asked to report upon them) that "there is nothing therein about his Embassy to the Great Mogul, but two Letters of that Emperor and King James's Instructions and Letters of Credance to Sir Thomas Rowe," with three letters from King James, the Archbishop of Canterbury, and Secretary Winwood, all relating to the proposed trade with Persia, together with four long letters from the Earl of Totnes, giving Europe news. At last, however, the first volume came again to light, and found a final resting-place in our great national collection. In a letter dated January 4, 1817, the Rev. J. Coltman, curate of Beverley Minster, without saying how he became possessed of it, presented it to the British Museum, where it is known as Addl. MS. 6115. It is a thick volume of about 288 folios, beautifully written in a neat, clerkly hand, and is in excellent preservation.
1.12.4
Besides the fair copy made for his own use, Roe had others prepared from time to time to send to England. To Lord Carew, for instance, he sent, in January, 1616, a copy extending to the date of his arrival at Burhánpur (p. 110), and later on a further portion. Neither of these is extant. To the Company he sent regular batches as the opportunity occurred. The despatch of several of these we can trace. Thus, one portion was sent home with Roe's letter of November 24, 1615 (see p. 94); another, continuing the story to November 19, 1616, went a year later (p. 340); and a third was despatched in the middle of February, 1618 (p. 466). The portion for the concluding year of his embassy Roe would naturally take home with him, having no opportunity of sending it before, except perhaps by the uncertain route overland. Whether this last portion got beyond the stage of rough notes, and if so, whether Roe ever delivered a fair copy to the Company, cannot now be determined; but it is plain that the copy, if it existed, had gone astray before Purchas came upon the scene.
1.12.5
It was in 1622 that the reverend geographer, in search of materials for his Hakluytus Posthumus : or Purchas His Pilgrimes, applied to the Company for permission to use their collection of logs, and especially Roe's Journal. We have inferred that he already had access to the first part of the diary from Roe's own copy, and it was probably the later portions only that he needed. He could not have seen, however, more than the three sections which we have already described as having been sent home in 1616-18, for he expressly states that he could find nothing later than January 22, 1618. He had inquired diligently for the rest, "but neither with the Honourable Company nor elsewhere could learn of it." This points strongly to the correctness of our surmise that Roe brought home the fourth section only in rough, and never found the opportunity to have it fairly copied for the Company, or perhaps for himself.
1.12.6
The three sections which the Company did receive have long since vanished from their records. Bruce does not appear to have seen them when compiling his Annals, early in the present century. If we mistake not, however, the first of the three is now in the British Museum. Addl. MS. 19277, purchased in 1852 at the Arley Castle sale, is a contemporary transcript of the Diary from the beginning to the departure from Burhánpur; and both the character and handwriting of the marginal abstracts subsequently added, and the manner in which the volume is labelled, leave little doubt that the manuscript formed at one time part of the Company's records. Thus the only two contemporary manuscripts of Roe's Journal known to be extant have found their way to the national collection. As we have seen, it was in Purchas his Pilgrimes (vol. i, p. 535) that Roe's Journal, with a few letters or portions of letters, was first given to the world; and practically it is this version which has formed the basis of all succeeding accounts of the embassy. It is therefore all the more to be regretted that the materials available were handled in such an unsatisfactory manner. When one remembers the difficulties, monetary and otherwise, under which the reverend geographer laboured, and the inestimable service he rendered by placing on record so much that would otherwise have perished, one is little inclined to join in the sweeping condemnation often passed upon him.
1.12.7
But, it must be confessed that his editing of this particular journal is a very bad piece of work. That he should cut it down to a third or less was perhaps to be expected, in view of the restrictions of space imposed by his general plan; but that, while leaving untouched many trivialities (such as "the copy is registered," when he does not print the letter in question), he should excise passages vital to the comprehension of others which were allowed to stand: that his dates should often be wrong: and that the carelessness of his copyist (or his printer) should be allowed to make nonsense of important passages, will scarcely admit of excuse. However, as we have said, the difficulties in which his work was produced may be pleaded in his defence, and we must at least be grateful to him for having preserved for us extracts from nearly a full year of the Journal (1617-18), for which no manuscript account is now available. Purchas's collection contained also (vol. ii, p. 1464) some notes by the Rev. Edward Terry, who had acted as Roe's chaplain during the greater part of his embassy; and these were subsequently expanded into a small volume, which was published in 1655. The bibliography of this work is given on p. 527; and nothing need be said here concerning it, except to note that it is frequently confused with Roe's own Journal, especially in the edition of 1665, where the name of the author is not given.
1.12.8
In 1656 a Dutch version of Roe's account, translated from Purchas, was published at Amsterdam in a small quarto of 126 pages, embellished with four quaint copper-plates. The next appearance of the diary was in the first volume of Thevenot's Divers Voyages Curieux (1663), where it is stated to have been translated "du Recueil Anglois de Purchas." The editor has added a few notes, an extract from Purchas his Pilgrimage, three letters (also from Purchas), and Roe's geographical description of India, with the map.