Editions
These notes aim to justify Cotgrave’s hypothetical usage of the edition or editions of each play included in the Edition Search of this web project. They are short and preliminary, not intended as a substitute for the forthcoming criticism concerning these matters, which will be published in a critical edition of the book. Each title is listed below in relation to the listing of each play in Wiggins’s British Drama, with only 9 of the intended 12 volumes published. When the notes refer to an “A” or “B” text of a play, the letter corresponds to Wiggins’s decisions on the chronological order of creation. All edition information is sourced from W. W. Greg’s A Bibliography of the English Printed Drama to the Restoration (4 vols. Oxford: Bibliographical Society, 1939–1959), abbreviated as BEPD throughout. All editions are compared using the facsimiles provided by Early English Books Online, with occasional reference to additional surrogates from Internet Archive, Google Books, and the collections accessible through Omnie.ie.
The Comedy of Errors (944)
While Wiggins describes only a single text of this play (the Folio text of 1623, STC 22273), the passage cited by Cotgrave reveals a one-word addition distinctive to F2. F1 has “where it gets”, F2 has “where it once gets”, and Cotgrave follows F2 with “where once it gets” (80.4).
source: Most probably F2 (1632), containing BEPD 393(b).
Cleopatra (949)
Wiggins describes two substantive versions, an A-text printed in 1594 (STC 6243.4) and a B-text printed in 1607 (STC 6240). However, by my count, Cotgrave includes 13 extracts that most likely all derive from the B-text, whereas Wiggins mentions only “ten extracts.” Some of the variants include: “No privilege Philosophy doth give” (172.5); “They who are vanquished”, “that are”, “thou”, and “overthrown” (194.7); and “though they get” (280.3).
The A-text omits extracts 37.5–, 77.2, 119.2, 133.1, and 157.9–. Assuming that Cotgrave used the B-text, he might have relied on BEPD 132(gI) [1607, collection], 132(gII) [1607, reissued collection], 132(hI) [1611, collection], or 132(hII) [1611, reissued collection]—BEPD 132(i) [1623, collection] reverts to the textual state of (a)–(f). Of these, it seems most likely that he relied on BEPD 132(g)—either issue. For example, extract 280.3 includes the variant “they love the treason” (Cotgrave, A-text, 1607) versus “they love treason” (1611, B-text). Additionally, Cotgrave seems to have relied on the same 1607 collection for his copies of Philotas (see 1440, below) and Queen’s Arcadia (see 1478, below).
source: Certaine Small Workes (1607), containing BEPD 132(g).
The Two Gentlemen of Verona (970)
Wiggins describes the printed text of 1623 (STC 22273, F1) as “from a scribal transcript by Ralph Crane.” Slight evidence, such as lineation in 143.1, suggests that Cotgrave worked from the First Folio text. For example, where F1 and Cotgrave have “were man / But Constant”, F2 breaks the expression at a different point of emphasis, “were / Man but constant”.
source: Most likely F1, containing 391(a).
Romeo and Juliet (987)
Wiggins identifies an A-text printed in 1599 (STC 22323) from “authorial foul papers” and a B-text printed in 1597 (STC 22322). The 1623 folio (STC 22273) is based on the A-text, which is also found in the subsequent printings of Q3 (STC 22324, 1609) and Q4 (STC 22325, [1622]). The single variant in the passage from Romeo and Juliet does not appear in any printed edition of the play but is found in an adaptation of the passage in The Bastard (Wing M548, 1652)—“his” (Q2, Q3, Q4, Q5, F1, F2) vs “its” (Bastard, Cotgrave). Q1 omits the passage.
Considering Cotgrave’s rare use of texts printed in the 1650s (if any), the earlier source appears to be the most probable.
source: Romeo and Juliet, after 1599, described as BEPD 143, any of states (b)–(g).
King Richard II (1002)
Wiggins identifies three early witnesses: a Q1 of 1597 (STC 22307), a Q2 of 1608 (STC 22310), and F1 (STC 22273). Upon collation of the passages, no substantives unique to a particular printing are revealed. However, a substantive found in the sixth edition of 1615 suggests that it was not Cotgrave’s source. While all other editions have “or painted clay,” the 1615 edition has “and painted clay”; Cotgrave includes “or” (61.5).
source: Richard II, after 1597, described as BEPD 141, states (a)–(d) or (f)–(h).
Love’s Labours Lost (1031)
Wiggins describes only a single text of this play (Q1, 1598, STC 22294), but the passage cited by Cotgrave reveals a deletion that is distinctive to F2 (1632). While Q1, Q2, and F1 have the line “doth light of light beguile,” Cotgrave follows F2 with only “doth light beguile.”
source: F2 (1632), containing BEPD 150(d).
Mustapha (1041)
Wiggins describes two “substantive versions” of Mustapha. The “early state” is represented by “four witnesses” containing “numerous variants” (manuscripts at Cambridge University Library, Folger Shakespeare Library, Princeton, and the printed edition in 1609 [STC 12362]). The “revised state” is evidenced by two surviving witnesses (manuscript at the British Library and the printed edition of 1633 [STC 12361]). Cotgrave provides 48 quotations (not 46), mainly with distinct variants from, or that exclusively appear in, the B-text. Presumably, he used the 1633 collection of Mustapha (BEPD 278[b]) and Alaham (BEPD 489[a]), published under the title Certaine learned and elegant Workes (1633; BEPD, pp. 3:1068–69).
The A-text excludes the following excerpts: 1.3, 50.8, 78.5, 93.5, 135.1, 154.4, 154.5–, 172.4, 196.5, 202.4, 212.4, 212.5, 257.6, 269.6, 270.3, 270.5, 276.5, and 280.8. It partially omits the following extracts: 7.8 (omits lines 3–4), 49.10 (omits lines 2–4), 154.2 (omits lines 12–16), 258.6 (omits lines 1–2), and 269.8 (omits line 2). Diverse B-text variants manifest in 10.2 (3 variants), 10.3 (2 variants), 10.4 (3 variants), 14.2 (2 variants), 32.2 (3 variants), 43.2 (3 variants), 43.3 (1 variant), 45.3 (1 distinct line, about 10 variants), 70.2 (1 variant), 78.4 (2 variants), 95.2 (1 variant), 110.2 (1 variant), 111.7 (3 variants, 1 distinct line), 122.5 (3 variants), 185.3 (4 variants), 195.5 (3 variants), 258.3 (1 distinct line), 269.7 (2 variants), 269.8 (1 variant, 1 distinct line), 270.4 (1 variant), and 281.7 (7 variants).
In 270.4, a variant of the A-text appears, presumably an edit by Cotgrave (“ever together” [A-text, Cotgrave] vs “together ever” [B-text]). Other variants that potentially indicate sporadic use of the A-text include 195.5 (“while” vs “whilst”), 258.3 (“night” vs “might”), and (“Suspition” [A-text], “Suspitious” [B-text], “Suspitions” [Cotgrave]).
source: Certaine learned and elegant Workes (1633), containing BEPD 278(b).
The Merchant of Venice (1047)
Wiggins describes a single source text of The Merchant of Venice, the quarto of 1600 (STC 22296), from which the subsequent printings in folio derive. Of at least one passage (190.3–), we can be certain that Cotgrave used a copy of the Second Folio.
Where Q-printings and F1 have “heart coole with mortifying grones,” F2 and Cotgrave replace “heart” with “heat.” Additionally, three other passages yield variants unique to one of the Folio printings—6.2 has “then be” vs “then to,” 76.5 has “a prodigall” vs “the prodigall,” and 91.5 omits “as.”
source: F2 (1632), containing BEPD 172(d).
1 Henry IV (1059)
Wiggins describes only the single printed text of 1598 (Q2, STC 22279a), noting Q1 (STC 22280) as “the former not extant in its entirety.” On reasonable grounds, we can be certain that Cotgrave used the F1 text.
Two variants tie the F1 text to Cotgrave in 70.8 (“it” vs “in”, omission of “O”). Additionally, where Cotgrave, F1, and Q1 give “ridge of the gallows,” F2 gives “ride of the Gallowes” (274.5–). Furthermore, more significant variants in 283.4 serve to eliminate Q1 (“Alter” vs “altars”, “take my horse” vs “tast my horse”).
source: F1 (1623), containing BEPD 145(h).
2 Henry IV (1083)
Wiggins describes three early witnesses: the printed text of 1600 (Q1, STC 22288); the reissue of Q1 in 1600 that inserts an additional scene, 3.1 (Qb, STC 22288a); and the “adaptation” in the First Folio, which incorporates “further additional passages” in 1.1, 1.3, 2.3, and 4.1.
Many variants in extracts 111.4, 127.4–, and 262.2 restrict the source to one of the Folio printings. For example, “write” vs “wet” in 111.4, “nature” vs “natures” in 127.4–, and “Sea-boy” vs “season” in 262.2. Extract 127.4– entirely eliminates Q1 as it is from 3.1, added first in Qb.
source: F1 (1623), containing BEPD 167(b), or F2 (1632), containing BEPD 167(c).
Every Man in His Humour (1143)
Wiggins remarks on “two substantive versions” of Every Man in His Humour, an A-text printed in 1601 (STC 14766, Q) and a B-text printed in the 1616 folio (STC 14751). He writes of four extracts “from A.1.1, A.1.4, A.3.1”, presumably meaning derivation from the A-text.
By my count, four of the five extracts have clear variants from the A-printing or quarto (35.2, 114.3, 138.1, and 310.2), with 28.3 appearing only in the quarto. Some of the variants are as follows: 35.2, “Faith sir” without “you’ll say”; 114.3, “crownes”, “humours”, “to intrude your selfe”, with the second half of the quotation only in Q1; 138.1 “of” for “to” and “searching” for “subtle”; and 310.2, with variants “straight”, “dogge”, and “masters”.
source: Every Man in His Humour (1601), described as BEPD 176(a).
Much Ado About Nothing (1148)
Wiggins describes the printed text of 1600 (STC 22304, Q) as deriving from “authorial foul papers or a transcript thereof.” Two minor variants of 36.2 (plural of “monument” and “bell rings” to “bells ring”) suggest Cotgrave’s use of a folio text. Lineation is a clue to Cotgrave’s use of a folio text in 286.6: Q has “brings / home” where F1 and F2 give “atchieuer / brings,” followed by Cotgrave.
source: F1 (1623), containing BEPD 168(b), or F2 (1632), containing BEPD 168(c).
Henry V (1183)
Wiggins records two early versions, an A-text printed in the First Folio (STC 22273) and a B-text printed in quarto in 1600 (STC 22289). The A-text is derived from “a memorial reconstruction of an abridged version, probably made by the actors who played Exeter and Gower”. Among the five extracts, three point to a folio source (27.5, 91.3, 241.6), with two substantive variants of 29.3 to suggest his reading copy was the 1632 Second Folio. Variants of the Folio appear in 27.5 (“lodge” vs “bed”, “a dozen or fourteen” vs “half a score”, “Needles” vs “needle”), with 91.3 differing entirely from Q and 241.6 absent from Q. Exclusively found in F2, 29.3 gives “woeful” vs “full” and “song” vs “saying”.
source: F2 (1632), containing BEPD 165(e).
Julius Caesar (1198)
Wiggins describes the First Folio text of 1623 (STC 22273). On very slight evidence, F1 is preferred as Cotgrave’s source (“Crests” in F1 and Cotgrave, vs “Crest” in F2 [40.1]).
source: F1 (1623), containing BEPD 403(a).
Every Man Out of His Humour (1216)
Wiggins identifies three substantive versions, a quarto of 1600 with “the original ending relegated to an appendix” (STC 14767; A-text), the B-text with “the revised ending printed in the main text” (the same book as the A-text), and the C-text—the printed edition of Jonson’s 1616 Workes (F, STC 14751), “with numerous minor verbal variants, and an ending combining elements of A and B.” None of Cotgrave’s extracts come from the final act of the play. Eliminating Q3, 15.1 has “manners” instead of “in manners”. Cotgrave’s “And make” vs “an make” (F2 only) discourages F2 as a source of 126.4, similarly “saw” vs “say” (F2 only) in 126.5, and “and” vs “an” (F2 only), also in 126.5.
source: Every Man Out of His Humor (1600), described as BEPD 163, states (a)–(b), or The Workes, after 1616, containing BEPD 163, states (d)–(c).
Antonio and Mellida (1218)
Wiggins describes the printed text of 1602 (Q1, STC 17473) as “probably from an authorial manuscript marked up for theatrical use”. A second edition of the play appeared as part of The Workes of Mr. John Marston in 1633 (STC 17471, O). A few very minor variants in 54.5– suggest that Cotgrave worked from the 1633 collection as he did for several other plays of English Treasury (Antonio’s Revenge, Dutch Courtesan, Parasitaster, What you Will, and Wonder of Women ).
The contraction “to’ther” in 1602 becomes “t’other” in 1633, which appears as “th’other” in English Treasury. Another contraction of the same passage from 1602—”Th’other”—is expanded in 1633 and in Cotgrave’s extract to “The other”. Although the evidence from the editions is circumstantial, it seems sufficient, given the other extracts from the same collection, to attribute the quotations to the 1633 edition.
source: The Workes of Mr. John Marston (1633), containing BEPD 184(b).
As You Like It (1237)
Wiggins describes the First Folio text of 1623 (STC 22273). On very slight evidence in 191.3, the text of F2 is preferred as Cotgrave’s source. F2 and Cotgrave have “in which my often rumination” vs F1 “in which by often rumination”.
source: F2 (1632), containing BEPD 394(b).
Hamlet (1259)
Wiggins discusses the three substantive witnesses of Hamlet: a Q1 of “memorial reconstruction” (1603, STC 22275, A-text), an authorial Q2 (1604, STC 22276, B-text), and the posthumous F1 (1623, STC 22273, C-text). In his entry, he identifies nineteen extracts where Cotgrave allegedly uses “both Q4 and F,” where “Q4” is a reprinting of the B-text (STC 22278). Closer analysis reveals one substantive unique to the ‘bad’ first quarto (“world” vs “earth” 260.4), seven passages from a B-text (any of Q2 to Q5: 67.3, 82.5, 118.4, 136.8–, 142.4, 192.4, 238.6), and passages from an F-printing (most likely the First Folio, with minor variants, mostly compositorial, on the C-text: F1 [56.4–], F1 or F2 [78.7, 145.5, 201.5–, 206.4], F2 [42.6–] [?]).
source: Hamlet (1603), described as BEPD 197(a), any of Hamlet Q2–Q5 (1604–1637), described as BEPD 197, states (b)–(d) and (g), and F1 (1623), containing BEPD 197(e).
Cynthia’s Revels (1269)
Wiggins identifies two substantive versions of Cynthia’s Revels, an A-text printed in quarto in 1601 (STC 14773) and a B-text, printed from a corrected copy of that text, in Jonson’s 1616 Workes (STC 14751). He writes that Cotgrave has quoted “from 1.2. and A.5.5”, which presumably means Cotgrave used the A-text. One minor textual variant in 156.1 (“heads” for “head”) gives preference to the quarto printing.
source: Most likely The Fountaine of Selfe-Love (1601), described as BEPD 181(a).
Antonio’s Revenge (1271)
Wiggins identifies the printed text of 1602 (STC 17474, Q) as “from an authorial MS, perhaps with some theatrical annotation.” When the play was reprinted in octavo in 1633 as part of the collection The Workes of Mr. John Marston (STC 17471, O), a few minor differences crept in with the new typesetting. Cotgrave appears to delete “most” from “most strangers” (1602) vs “strangers” (1633). Additionally, 139.6 follows the lineation of Q, with “what, / Shall” vs “not / what shall” (1633).
source: The Workes of Mr. John Marston (1633), containing BEPD 185(b).
What You Will (1283)
Wiggins identifies the printed text of 1607 (STC 17487, Q) as “from authorial foul papers”. When the play was reprinted in octavo in 1633 as part of the collection The Workes of Mr. John Marston (STC 17471, O), a few minor differences crept in with the new typesetting. “[P]atcht up”, from 1607, becomes “parched” in 1633, which Cotgrave reproduces in extract 16.4.
source: The Workes of Mr. John Marston (1633), containing BEPD 252(b).
[Poetaster, or] The Arraignment (1296)
Wiggins describes two substantive versions: a printed text of 1602 (the A-text, Q, STC 14781), and a printed text of 1616 (F, Workes, the B-text, STC 14751). Although he assigns no specific text to Cotgrave, one of the twelve extracts includes a variant that suggests Q, or the A-text. Extract 129.5 and 1602 have “Tyrants” where F1 has “Tyrannes”. “Tyrannes, n.” combines the Latin “tyrannus” (Tyrant) and the ‘ess’ suffix to denote a female “tyrant,” which is of distinct meaning from F (OED). In 100.1, capitalization acts as a substantive for “Earth,” linking Cotgrave to the Q-text. “Earth” represents a personification in the passage as it appears in Q (cf. “Barbarism’s,” 253.4). There is a possible F2 variant of “write” (F2, Cotgrave), vs “wright,” (other printings) in 100.1, but the explanation is more likely Cotgrave’s modernization of the old form. Similarly, two contractions in 253.4 might be read as leading in split directions, one to Q and one to an F-printing.
source: Poetaster, or the Arraignment (1602), described as BEPD 186(a), or The Workes, after 1616, containing BEPD 186, states (b)–(c).
Twelfth Night (1297)
There are no significant textual differences between the extracts from this play found in its two editions, one from 1623 (in STC 22273) and the other from 1632 (in STC 22274).
source: F1 (1623), containing BEPD 396(a), or F2 (1632), containing BEPD 396(b).
Troilus and Cressida (1325)
Wiggins identifies an A-text of 1609 “probably from authorial foul papers” (STC 22331, Q1) and a B-text of 1623, printed from a “copy of Q annotated with reference to a prompt-book” (STC 22273, F1). He notes “nine extracts” from “the B-text”. Of this number, five extracts exhibit variants of a folio printing (the B-text), with two supporting with reasonable clarity his use of the First Folio printing. Following F1, 118.5 has “simply man” and “one plucke”, vs one variant of F2 (“honour’d by”), and 291.5– has “encounterers” vs “encounters”, eliminating Q1 with the variant of “tickling” for “ticklish”. Mixed F variants appear in 137.2, 208.4–, and 283.5– (e.g., 137.2, “we sit”; 208.4–, “ill Aspects”; and 283.5–, “hemm’d” vs “shrupd”).
source: Probably F1 (1623), containing BEPD 279(a).
Sir Giles Goosecap, Knight (1340)
Wiggins described the printed text of 1606 (STC 12050) as deriving “from authorial copy”, noting that “the text has been censored”. A second edition appeared circa 1636 (STC 12052). One slight variation in Cotgrave’s extract of the play prefers the 1606 printing. Where 1606 and Cotgrave have “Alters”, the 1636 second quarto has “Alter” (302.2). The evidence is very slight but serves to give a preference.
source: Sir Gyles Goosecappe (1606), described as BEPD 228(a).
The Malcontent (1391)
According to Wiggins, there are three early witnesses of The Malcontent, all printed in quarto in 1604: Q1 (STC 17479) and Q2 (STC 17480) constitute an A-text, identified as “apparently the Blackfriars version,” with Q2 augmenting the text of Q1. On the other hand, Q3 (STC 17481) is labeled as “apparently the Globe version,” which includes significant additions “to the roles of Malevole and Bilioso” (B-text). While Wiggins mentions that Cotgrave quotes “fourteen extracts” from “B.5.3 and B.5.6,” most likely referring to the B-text (STC 17481, Q3), my independent collation reveals only a few remarkable differences. For instance, in 144.4, the A-text (Q1, Q2) reads “quite is vndone,” whereas the B-text, as quoted by Cotgrave in Q3, has “quite undone.” Similarly, in 147.2, both printings of the A-text have “neare,” while the B-text features “ne’re,” which is further modified to “never” in English Treasury. Interestingly, Wiggins appears to count fourteen of the fifteen extracts reported here, possibly combining 243.8 and 243.9.
source: The Malcontent (1604), described as BEPD 203(c).
Sejanus’ Fall [Sejanus His Fall] (1412)
Wiggins presents two printed witnesses of Sejanus, without differentiation into A- and B-texts: F, the 1616 Folio (STC 14751), includes “minor authorial revisions” and “one additional line” from Q, the first and only quarto; and Q, the 1605 quarto (STC 14782), derived from “an authorial MS”. While Wiggins does not explicitly state Cotgrave’s source text for the play, he suggests Q as the more probable choice.
Upon conducting a full collation of the texts, only one of the thirty extracts shows a distinct derivation. Extract 155.5 aligns with Q, using “convert to” instead of “turn deep,” which serves as stronger evidence than the difference of “makes” and “make” (the F variant in the same extract).
It is noteworthy that Cotgrave cites from Strachey’s commendatory verses in 272.3, which are present in Q but not reprinted with the play in Jonson’s 1616 Workes (F). Similarly, the 1640 reprint of F omits the verse.
Also, many of Cotgrave’s extracts appear in the quarto within commonplace markers, possibly indicating his rationale for selection in the text (39.6, 57.5, 80.3, 96.5–, 101.6, 105.8, 118.6–, 155.2, 155.3, 155.4, 155.6, 204.3, 205.1, 240.2, 250.4, 254.8–, 276.6).
source: Sejanus His Fall (1605), described as BEPD 216(a).
Measure for Measure (1413)
There are no significant textual differences between the extracts from this play found in its two editions, one from 1623 (in STC 22273) and the other from 1632 (in STC 22274).
source: F1 (1623), containing BEPD 392(a), or F2 (1632), containing BEPD 392(b).
The Phoenix (1420)
Wiggins identifies the printed text of 1607 (STC 17892) as “from authorial foul papers”. A second edition was published in 1630 (STC 17893). Although the evidence is limited, it seems likely that Cotgrave used the 1607 text as the basis for his extracts. The slight difference of “paper” (1607, Cotgrave) and “papers” (1630) may suggest that Cotgrave used the earlier edition (166.2–). Cotgrave appears to follow the 1607 edition with “the pleasure of a man” vs “the pleasure of man” (168.2–). In 292.5, Cotgrave seems to follow the 1607 edition with “now” instead of “how”.
One potential variant of the 1630 edition (“the sixe” instead of “sixe” in 168.2–) may be due to alteration for the correction of blank verse and scansion. It is noteworthy that the underlying text of 168.2– covers several pages of prose said by different characters in the play, making it the most extensive and sophisticated of Cotgrave’s adaptations. This results in the longest extract of his English Treasury, with a quotation of 60 verse lines.
source: The Phoenix (1607), described as BEPD 243(a).
Bussy D’Ambois [Tragedy of Bussy D’Ambois] (1428)
Wiggins identifies two substantive versions of the play referred to on this web project as “The Tragedy of Bussy D’Ambois”. The A-text derives from Chapman’s “authorial foul papers” (STC 4966, 1607), and the B-text derives from a copy of the A-text “annotated with reference to a prompt-book” (Wing C1941, 1641). He suggests that Cotgrave used both texts, but mainly relied on the A-text. While there is one minor B-text reading in a passage from 1.1 (sigs. K1r–v), Wiggins notes that this could be Cotgrave’s own sophistication of the text or an error.
Some of the variants from the A-text include: “sits” vs “wakes” (74.1), “When” vs “Where” (93.8–), and “rude” vs “old” (110.7), and “t’have” vs “have” (185.4). Additionally, extracts 108.4 and 233.7 are omitted from the B-text. Regarding extract 129.7–, Wiggins acknowledges the variant “doth” (A-text) for “doe” (B-text) or “do” (Cotgrave).
source: Bussy D’Ambois: A Tragedie (1607), described as BEPD 246(a).
Honest Whore Part I [also known as The Patient Man and the Honest Whore] (1431)
Cotgrave might have used any of five editions of Honest Whore Part I: 1604 (STC 6501, Q1), 1604 (STC 6501.5, Q2), 1605 (STC 6502, Q3), 1615 (STC 6503, Q4), and 1635 (STC 6505, Q5). However, slight evidence prefers Q4 or Q5. Specifically, in the first three editions, the text of 42.4 begins with “The”; whereas, starting with 1615, “The” becomes “Tho”, which is a better fit for adaptation as Cotgrave’s “If”.
source: The Honest Whore (1615), described as BEPD 204(d), or The Honest Whore (1635), described as BEPD 204(e).
The Dutch Courtesan (1434)
Wiggins identifies the printed text of 1605 (STC 17475, Q) as “from authorial copy; possibly expurgated in printing.” When the play was reprinted in octavo in 1633 as part of the collection The Workes of Mr. John Marston (STC 17471, O), a few minor differences crept in with the new typesetting. Cotgrave follows the 1633 printing in extract 260.3, which includes “truest” (O) instead of “truly” (Q). Extract 290.3– deletes a seemingly unnecessary “and” from the phrase “and as” (Q).
source: The Workes of Mr. John Marston, containing BEPD 214(b).
[Othello,] The Moor of Venice (1437)
Wiggins identifies two texts of Othello, listed in his British Drama as “The Moor of Venice”. He records an A-text of 1622 (Q1, STC 22305) and a B-text of 1623 (F1, STC 22273). He notes that “Cotgrave appears to have used exemplars of both the A- and B-texts”. We can be a little more precise: variants in 83.2 and 139.3 favour the quarto, A-text; whereas, variants in 61.6 and 85.3 favour a folio text; one variant in 65.4 is unique to the Second Folio printing (“cause” for “case”), whereas 186.8– expresses no variants.
In sum, the variants appear: Q1 or Q2 (83.2, 139.3), F1 or F2 (61.6, 85.3), and F2 (65.4).
source: Othello, The Moore of Venice (1622), described as BEPD 397(a), or Othello, The Moore of Venice (1630), described as BEPD 397(c); and F2 (1632), containing BEPD 379(d).
Philotas (1440)
Wiggins describes the text of Philotas as existing in two early states, an A-text printed in octavo in 1605 (STC 6239, O1) and a B-text printed in octavo in 1607 (STC 6240, O2), with “minor, scattered authorial revision.” He notes that Philotas usually appears collected with Daniel’s other plays Cleopatra (949, above) and Queen’s Arcadia (1478, below), in Certaine Small Workes (1607, STC 6240), reprinted in 1611 (STC 6238), and The Whole Workes of Samuel Daniel 1623 (STC 6242).
According to Wiggins, the text of 1611 relies on the copy of O2 (B-text) and the text of 1623 relies on the copy of O1 (the A-text). No copy exists of a 1635 text, which W. W. Greg describes based on a record from Hazlitt’s Handbook (BEPD, p. 3:1055). It seems most likely that Cotgrave relied on a copy of the B-text from the first printing of the B-text in Certaine Small Workes (1607, STC 6240)—the A-text was also reprinted in the same year, in duodecimo (D, STC 6263).
In 20.9–, Cotgrave includes the word “idolizing” where all A-printings have variations on “idol-liuing” (excluding 1623, the extract has “pray of power” vs “pray for power”). Variations on B appear elsewhere with “thus”, presumably adapted from “so”, in 37.4; “these fatall fortunes prove” vs “who are so high aboue”, in 70.4; “or” vs “ere” in 77.6; “maiestie” vs “gallantrie” in 108.8–; “of madnesse pittied / If out of malice” vs “if out of madnesse fall / They must be pitied” in 149.3; and “effection” vs “affection” in 279.6–. One variant persists eliminating the second printing of the B-text in 263.5–: all editions except 1611 include “one trumpets sound”, which appears in Cotgrave’s extract, instead of “on trumpets sound”.
source: Certaine Small Workes (1607), containing BEPD 223(c).
Michaelmas Term (1444)
Wiggins identifies a single text of Michaelmas Term, the quarto printed in 1607 from “authorial papers” (STC 17890). Nevertheless, Sonia Massai describes the 1630 second quarto as printed from “corrected copy” (STC 17891). She observes in her landmark essay “Editorial Pledges in Early Modern Dramatic Paratexts” (2011) that the 1630 quarto is advertised on its title page as “Newly corrected” (p. 96).
A close comparison of the passages from both editions reveals only one substantive difference among Cotgrave’s extracts. Extract 120.3 and the text of the 1630 edition include “Then men take paines to make it fit for dogs”, where the 1607 edition includes the singular of “payne”.
source: Michaelmas Term (1630), described as BEPD 244(b).
The Fawn [or Parasitaster] (1455)
Wiggins records two substantive early witnesses, Q1 printed in 1606 from “an authorial manuscript” (STC 17483), and Q2, printed in 1606 “partly from standing type set for Q1, and partly reset from unbound sheets of Q1” (STC 17484). He notes that Q2 incorporates “authorial corrections, with minor cuts and additions.”
Wiggins does not identify whether Cotgrave used Q1, Q2, or O (STC 17471, 1633). However, a single variant suggests that Cotgrave used the Q1 text by way of the 1633 Marston collection of Workes. In extract 222.2, Cotgrave follows O (1633) with “Philosophy” for “Philosopher”.
source: The Workes of Mr. John Marston (1633), containing BEPD 230(c).
All’s Well that Ends Well (1461)
Wiggins describes the printed text of 1623 (STC 22273, F1) as “from authorial foul papers, possibly with some theatrical annotation.” In Cotgrave’s six extracts of the play, only one contains a variant that potentially identifies Cotgrave’s source as F1 rather than F2 (STC 22274). Both F1 and Cotgrave include the expression “we the poorer borne,” whereas in F2 the expression is “we poorer borne” (233.5). Although “the” completes the pentametre of the line, other lines of the extract have unnecessary syllables.
source: F1 (1623), containing BEPD 395(b).
Eastward Ho! (1473)
Wiggins describes the printed text of 1605 (STC 4980) as “from authorial foul papers or a scribal transcript thereof”, noting that “Censorship occurred during printing” and that “the censored state adds a (presumably innocuous) passage in 3.3”. Two subsequent editions appeared in the same year, STC 4972 and STC 4973. Based on the available evidence, Cotgrave appears to have used the third quarto of the play from the variant of “those” for “these” in 56.3.
source: Eastward Hoe (1605), described as BEPD 217(c).
[Queen’s Arcadia, performed as] Arcadia Reformed (1478)
Wiggins reports two versions of the text, an A-text of 1606 (STC 6262, Q), and a B-text of 1607 (STC 6240, O). The O-version (B-text) was part of the collection Certaine Small Workes, by Samuel Daniel, which included Queen’s Arcadia, Cleopatra (949, above), and Philotas (1440, also above). Although only one variant finds its way into Cotgrave’s extracts, it is reasonable to suppose that Cotgrave worked from a copy of the B-text—mainly, there is only one difference among the versions for Cotgrave to include; also, he clearly relies on the B-texts of Philotas and Cleopatra, sold in the same collection, so he would have had access to that copy of the play. The single variant is found in extract 49.2. Where Cotgrave and the B-text give “it lets the maister in”, the A-text has “it lets your maister in”. Slight evidence though this is, it accompanies the circumstantial evidence to make for a convincing case.
source: Certaine Small Workes (1607), containing BEPD 227(b).
A Mad World, My Masters (1479)
Wiggins describes the printed text of 1608 (STC 17888) as probably “from authorial foul papers”. He notes that “The edition of 1640 (STC 17889) adds a few details, probably reflecting a production in the 1630s, which effectively create a B-text”. In fact, based on two very slight variants, it is possible to deduce that Cotgrave used the 1608 rather than the 1640 text, supposing that he used only one copy of the play. There is a tense shift in 205.3 different from the 1640 edition: 1608 and Cotgrave have “nothing comes stiffe from an old man but money”, whereas 1640 includes “nothing came stiffe from an old man but money”. Significant lineation leads back to the 1608 text in extract 205.4: Cotgrave appears to follow the 1608 text with the line break “Father, / Damn’d” rather than “thought-|acting Father, damb’d”.
source: A Mad World, My Masters (1608), described as BEPD 276(a).
The Wonder of Women [also printed under the title The Tragedy of Sophonisba] (1485)
Wiggins describes a single printed text of 1606 (STC 17488, Q), based on “an authorial manuscript.” The play was reprinted in 1633 in the collection The Workes of Mr. John Marston (STC 17471, O). Several minor variants suggest Cotgrave’s use of both the 1606 text and the 1633 collection of Marston plays. Extract 100.3 includes “on”, which could be a variant based on “swift” from some printings of Q; also, it includes “got with” in Q, vs O’s “got by”. Two plurals in 104.6 liken Cotgrave’s source to O (“vows” vs “vow” “oaths” vs “oath”), vs “my honor” (Q, Cotgrave) and “mine honor” (O). Extract 273.6 favours O with “Alarms” vs “all arms” in some printings of Q. Extract 40.2 and O both omit the words “vs”. Extract 286.8 appears to follow O with “censures it” vs “censures of it” in all printings of Q.
source: The Workes of Mr. John Marston (1633), containing BEPD 231(b), possibly also The Wonder of Women (1606), described as BEPD 231(a).
King Lear (1486)
Wiggins asserts the A-text as the printed quarto of 1608 (STC 22292) and the B-text as that of the 1623 folio (STC 22273), noting that the latter includes revisions and cuts “attributable to censorship”. He notes six extracts from various scenes of the B-text, 1.2, 2.2., 3.2, 5.1, and 5.3. Minor variants—the most significant being in 227.6—endorse Cotgrave’s use of one of the folio printings. Extract 227.6 shares with F-printings “vices” for “virtues” and “plague” for “scourge”; where 202.6 has “And” for “that” (Q-printings) and 241.7– has “twenty” for “a hundred”, deletes one “it”, and “upward goes”—which is more similar to “goes upward” (F1 and F2) than “goes up the hill” (Q1, Q2).
source: F1 (1623), containing BEPD 265(c), or F2, containing BEPD 265(d).
Volpone [or The Fox] (1493)
Wiggins observes a printed quarto of 1607 (STC 14783) and the folio of 1616 (STC 14751), both described as deriving from “authorial copy.” He states that “Cotgrave used a copy of either F1 or F2”. My independent collation of the passages reveals no substantive differences among them in any of the printings: the EEBO transcript of 1607 miscopies “gaine” for “game” (19.6), potentially suggesting the wrong source. However, two critical marks of punctuation suggest that Cotgrave used Q for 28.2: a semi-colon vs exclamation point after “Italy” and a comma rather than an exclamation point after “yeare”; this punctuation is essential to the sense of the passage, and it receives discussion in the textual notes of Parker, ed, Revels (p. 135). Similarly, similar to the Q-printings, Cotgrave includes a period rather than an exclamation point after “heaven” in 253.3.
source: Probably Volpone (1607), described as BEPD 259(a), and possibly The Workes, after 1616, containing BEPD 259, states (b) or (c).
The Fleer (1495)
Wiggins describes the 1607 edition of The Fleer (STC 22384) as “probably from authorial fair copy”. A second edition appeared in 1610 (STC 22385), followed by a third edition in 1615 (STC 22386) and a fourth edition in 1631 (STC 22387). Minor evidence in the form of one textual variant suggests that Cotgrave did not use the 1615 edition: the underlying text of 300.3 in 1615 omits “be” from the expression “you have a man be troubled with a wife”. In context, the “be” is an unnecessary word included by Cotgrave and in all other printings of the passage.
source: The Fleire, after 1607, described as BEPD 255, states (a), (b), or (d).
Macbeth (1496)
Wiggins describes the First Folio text of Macbeth as “probably a prompt-book or a transcript of one, possibly a version adapted by Thomas Middleton after Shakespeare’s retirement” (F1, STC 22273). One minor variant suggests Cotgrave’s use of F1 as opposed to F2. In 198.7– both F1 and Cotgrave share a tense shift “has been”, as opposed to F2’s “have beene”.
source: F1 (1623), containing BEPD 404(a).
Antony and Cleopatra (1517)
Wiggins describes the First Folio text of Antony and Cleopatra as “from authorial copy” (F1, STC 22273). One minor variant suggests Cotgrave’s use of F1 as opposed to F2. In 259.7 both F1 and Cotgrave share the same tense “grow”, as opposed to F2’s “grew”.
source: F1 (1623), containing BEPD 405(a).
The Miseries of Enforced Marriage (1521)
Wiggins describes two substantive editions, Q1 of 1607 (STC 25635) and Q2 of 1611 (STC 25636), with the latter including “minor amendments of an authorial character, possibly made either by the author or after consulting MS Copy.” One variant of “Such” vs “with” in 237.7– suggests that Cotgrave used the 1611 text or a reprinting thereof. The same variant reappears in Q3 (1629, STC 25637) and Q4 (1637, STC 25638).
source: The Miseries of Enforced Marriage, after 1611, described as BEPD 249, states (b)–(d).
Lingua (1524)
Wiggins describes the 1607 text (STC 24104). Four more editions appeared: undated (STC 24105) [ca. 1615], 1617 (STC 24105), 1622 (STC 24107), and 1632 (STC 24108). A pattern of variants shows that the extracts derive from either the 1607 or undated edition. Variants unique to the two first printings include “a great” instead of “great” in 127.1; “preserving” instead of “deserving” in 127.2; and “have bestowed” instead of “had bestowed” in 127.3. Also, “age of” instead of “age” appears in the first three printings of 127.3, and “he so” instead of “so he” further excludes 1632 as the source of 184.3.
source: Lingua (1607), described as BEPD 239(a), or Lingua (N.D.), described as BEPD 239(b).
Cupid’s Whirligig (1527)
Wiggins describes the 1607 text of Cupid’s Whirligig (STC 22380) as “from revised authorial foul papers”. Subsequent editions of the play appeared in 1611 (STC 22381), 1616 (STC 22382), and 1630 (STC 22383). On very minor evidence, the 1630 text appears to be Cotgrave’s source. Cotgrave shares with 1630 alone the awkward expression “thou wantst” instead of “thou wants” (120.3).
source: Cupids Whirligig (1630), described as BEPD 247(d).
Cupid’s Revenge (1533)
Wiggins describes the 1615 text (STC 1667) as “probably from an authorial fair copy in Francis Beaumont’s hand, which had been annotated by the book-keeper”. Two subsequent editions followed, the second edition of 1630 (STC 1668) and the third edition of 1635 (STC 1669). Only one minor variant appears to be duplicated in the Cotgrave passages, which suggests that Cotgrave did not use the 1615 edition. The editions of 1630 and 1635 have as a final couplet for 183.3 “Of lyes, yield miseries a thousand-fold / Upon thine head, as they have done on mine”, similar to Cotgrave; whereas 1615 ends the couplet with “of mine”.
source: Cupids Revenge (1630), described as BEPD 328(b), or Cupids Revenge (1635), described as BEPD 328(c).
Timon of Athens (1536)
Wiggins describes the First Folio text of Timon of Athens (F1, STC 22273) as “from authorial foul papers, perhaps transcribed by Thomas Middleton.” A wide range of variants suggest Cotgrave’s use of F1, as opposed to a single variant that might indicate F2. F1 variants occur in extracts 87.2, 118.2, 274.2, such as the omitted “if” and “man-slaughter” vs “Mad slaughter” of 87.2, a plural in 118.2, and “thing’s” vs “think’s” in 274.2. The single F2 variant of “these” vs “the” (F2 and Cotgrave) can be set down reasonably to one of Cotgrave’s alterations (210.3).
source: F1 (1623), containing BEPD 402(a).
Pericles, Prince of Tyre (1555)
Wiggins describes the printed text of 1609 (STC 22334) as from “memorial reconstruction”, noting that George Wilkins’s The Painful Adventures of Pericles (1608, STC 25638.5) may “incorporate elements of the narrative which were omitted or garbled by the reporter of the 1609 text”. Five subsequent editions appeared over the course of the seventeenth century: another edition of 1609 (STC 22335), an edition of 1611 (STC 22336), an edition of 1619 (STC N/A), an edition of 1630 (STC 22337), and an edition of 1635 (STC 22339). Close collation of these editions, from the copies on EEBO and of the Barton Collection digitized for Internet Archive, suggests that Cotgrave might have used any edition, but less likely the two of 1609 or 1611. “[G]lowing” begins a verse line in the editions of 1609, whereas the word “whereas” begins the line in all other editions and in English Treasury (106.4). The same word, cut from Cotgrave’s passage, is also a substantive in the edition of 1630, where it appears as “growing”. Notably, Cotgrave adapts meaningfully the beginning of 164.4–, copied by the anonymous author of the Canterbury manuscript adaptation: Shakespeare’s “Vertue and Cunning” becomes “Knowledge and Virtue”, justifying placement of the passage under Cotgrave’s subject heading “Of Knowledge.”
source: Pericles, Prince of Tyre, after 1619, described as BEPD 284, states (d)–(f).
The Turk [or Muleasses the Turk] (1557)
Wiggins describes the printed text of 1610 (STC 17617) as possibly “from a prompt-book”. A second edition of “The Turke” appeared in 1632 under the title “Muleasses the Truke, and Borgias Governour of Florence” (STC 17618). Very slight evidence prefers the 1632 edition as Cotgrave’s source, although he may have used either or both. In extract 198.5, Cotgrave includes “the land” instead of “thy land”—the saying as it appears in 1610. However, extract 247.6 sees Cotgrave follow the 1610 with “make” rather than “makes” (1632). Ultimately, the evidence is too weak to draw any firm conclusions.
source: Muleasses the Turke (1632), described as BEPD 286(b), and The Turke (1610), described as BEPD 286(a).
Ram Alley (1572)
Wiggins describes the printed text of 1611 (STC 1502) as “probably from authorial foul papers”. A second edition appeared in the same year (STC 1502a), followed by a third edition of 1636 (STC 1503). Several differences appear among these texts to show that Cotgrave used the 1636 edition. Extract 115.2 has “doth” (1636) where other editions give “does”, and “he had” instead of “a had”. Of extract 206.3, 1636 and Cotgrave give “letters patent” where other editions give the singular “letter patents”. Cotgrave follows the lineation of 1636 in extract 85.5, with “desirous / Of his” (1636, Cotgrave) vs “desirous of / his” (1611, both).
source: Ram Alley (1636), described as BEPD 292(c).
The Conspiracy of Charles Duke of Byron (1575)
Wiggins describes the printed text of 1608 (STC 4968) as “from an authorial fair copy” with censorship in “4.1.” and “A small censorship change (in 5.2) [that] was made during printing”. It seems plausible that Cotgrave used both the 1608 and 1625 collections containing The Conspiracy of Charles Duke of Byron (1575) and The Tragedy of Charles Duke of Byron (1576). Regarding the Conspiracy, one variant points to the 1608 text and one to the 1625 (STC 4969), but the evidence must be weighed against that of the Tragedy, discussed below. Extract 104.7– includes “not” from the expression “Which not another” (1608), differing from the 1625 “Which an other”. Nevertheless, there is the complex variant of “conceipt” in 1625 and in Cotgrave “conceit” versus the 1608 “concepts” (51.4).
source: The Conspiracie and Tragedie of Charles Duke of Byron (1608), containing BEPD 274(a), and The Conspiracie and Tragedie of Charles Duke of Byron (1625), containing BEPD 274(b).
The Tragedy of Charles Duke of Byron (1576)
Wiggins describes the printed text of 1608 (STC 4968) as “from fair copy”, noting that “The text has been censored, removing material from the start of Act 2 (and possibly the end of Act 1)”. It seems plausible that Cotgrave used both the 1608 first edition and the 1625 second edition contained in The Conspiracie and Tragedie of Charles Duke of Byron. Two minor variants point to the 1608 and one to the 1625. In 93.7 Cotgrave follows the distinctive lineation of 1608 with “Where enuy / And arrogance, their opposite Bulwarke raise”, vs “where / Enuey and arrogance, their opposite bulwarke raise”—this seems strong evidence as Cotgrave preserves the two words alone as a single line. Similarly, he appears to follow 1608 in 156.2 with “Counter-poize”, from “counterpoise”, as opposed to the 1625 “counterpose”—a completely different word, not a spelling variation. He follows 1625 with “better then themselves” vs “better them-selues” (214.5–).
source: The Conspiracie and Tragedie of Charles Duke of Byron (1608), containing BEPD 275(a), and The Conspiracie and Tragedie of Charles Duke of Byron (1625), containing BEPD 275(b).
Coriolanus (1589)
Wiggins describes the First Folio text of Coriolanus (F1, STC 22273) as “probably from a scribal transcript of authorial papers.” Although only one of the seven extracts in Cotgrave’s English Treasury discloses variants of a particular printing—F2—the evidence of that extract, 282.5, weighs strongly in favour of Cotgrave’s use of F2 at least for the one passage. Both F2 and Cotgrave have “when it spit forth blood / At Grecian swordes Contending”, where F1 changes the punctuation, tense, and final keyword with “when it spit forth blood / At Grecian sword. Contenning”.
source: F2 (1632), containing BEPD 401(b).
Philaster [or Love Lies a-Bleeding] (1597)
Wiggins describes two early versions, an A-text printed in quarto in 1622 (STC 1682) and a B-text printed in quarto in 1620 (STC 1681). He notes of the B-text, “1.1a and 5.4b–5 are completely different, but otherwise the text is essentially the same save for two brief additions in 2.2. and 5.3, and a cut from 4.4.” Cotgrave uses the A-text, in one of its various printings, as evidenced by the variants in extracts 38.5, 62.9–, 71.2, 99.3, 109.4, 149.5, and 159.2. The key variants are “seekes out” vs “seekes wrinckled” and “himself” for “it selfe” in 38.5; “Yet” for “But” and “Troy” for “time” in 62.9–; “over of a game” for “ore againe” in 71.2; “Has not a soul” vs “has a soul”, “for all men to read” vs “for all to read”, and “hearts” vs “faces” in 99.3; “yet saw” vs “saw yet” in 109.4; deletion of “the” in “the earth” from 149.5; and the deletions of “Still” and “we think” from “the power we thinke we haue” in 159.2. Within the set of A-texts, the edition of 1639 (Q5, STC 1685) stands out as the one that Cotgrave most likely used. Only 1639 and 1652 include the variant of “horribly” for “horrible” in extract 109.4. Advising against 1652, Cotgrave follows the distinctive lineation of earlier printings in the final lines of extract 71.2.
source: Philaster, or Love Lies a-Bleeding (1639), described as BEPD 363(e).
The Coxcomb (1598)
According to Wiggins, the printed text of 1647 (Wing B1581, F) is believed to have been derived from “the prompt-book of a version cut for a revival.” In his list of extracts in “Where to Find Lost Plays” (2014), he includes the last eleven lines of 56.2 as part of a lost play (p. 267). However, it is more likely that these lines reflect an early, now-lost version of Coxcomb.
source: A lost fragment (manuscript or print) of The Coxcomb.
The Insatiate Countess (1605)
Wiggins describes the printed text of 1613 (STC 17476) as “from a mixture of foul papers reflecting different states of revision.” The Insatiate Countess had two further printings, with a second edition in 1616 (STC 17477) and a third edition in 1631 (STC 17478). Based on the available evidence, it is likely that Cotgrave used a copy of Q1 or Q2.
In extract 7.4, Cotgrave follows 1613 and 1616 with “the end” instead of “end.” In extract 20.5, Cotgrave follows 1613 or 1616 with “gain” instead of “game.” Additionally, in extract 284.5, both Q1, Q2, and Cotgrave give “weak man” where Q3 has “a weak man.”
However, there is a possible variant for Q3 in extract 294.2, where Cotgrave and Q3 give “Women are made” instead of “Women were made” (Q1, Q2).
source: The Insatiate Countesse (1613), described as BEPD 315(a), or The Insatiate Countesse (1616), described as BEPD 315(b).
Amends for Ladies (1615)
Wiggins describes the 1618 edition (STC 10851) as “possibly from a prompt-book.” A second edition was published in 1639 (STC 10853). Cotgrave appears to have mainly used the 1639 text, as evidenced by the striking variant of “excellent” instead of “insolent” in extract 288.2. Another minor variant further supports this, as in extract 245.5 Cotgrave uses “beasts” where the 1618 text includes the singular “beast.”
source: Amends for Ladies (1639), described as BEPD 356(b).
Cymbeline, King of Britain (1623)
Wiggins describes the First Folio text of 1623 (STC 22273) as “from a scribal transcript by Ralph Crane, possibly of authorial papers.” Two of the five extracts that appear in English Treasury point to Cotgrave’s use of F1. Extract 74.6 discloses the seemingly minor variant of “some” vs “from” (F2), which may reflect a compositorial error from a typesetter’s misreading of a damaged long-s; and extract 208.3 discloses the potentially stylistic difference of “’tween” (Cotgrave, F1) vs “’twixt”. Notably, Cotgrave also adds a few words at the end of 208.3, “for Orders sake”, not in either F1 or F2.
source: F1 (1623), containing BEPD 406(a).
[The Bondman, performed as] The Noble Bondman (1624)
Wiggins describes the printed text of 1624 (STC 17632) as from “authorial papers”. A second edition was published in 1638 (STC 17633a). One striking variant makes clear that Cotgrave relied on the first edition for one or more—probably all—of the quotations. In 70.6, Cotgrave and 1624 share the phrase “confidence lends to others”, where the 1638 text includes “confidence yields to others”.
source: The Bond-man (1624), described as BEPD 408(a).
The Scornful Lady (1626)
Wiggins identifies the printed text of 1616 as “from an authorial MS or transcript thereof” (STC 1686, Q1). Nevertheless, the sixth edition of the play, printed for Humphrey Moseley in 1651 (Wing B1609, Q6), includes an editorial pledge as discussed by Sonia Massai in “Editorial Pledges in Early Modern Dramatic Paratexts” (2011). The pledge identifies the printing as “The sixt Edition, Corrected and amended”, and Massai describes its “Type of Intervention” as “annotated and corrected copy” (p. 97). Comparison of the 1616 edition with the 1651 edition shows minor textual variants that do not appear in the latter printing. In 304.5, the phrase “I would make um a new Lent” (1616, Cotgrave) becomes “we would make um a new Lent” in 1651. Similarly, in 304.6–, “dote to death” (1616, Cotgrave) changes to “dote till death” in 1651. The difference of 304.6– first appears in the fourth quarto of 1635, limiting Cotgrave’s source to the first, second, or third printing (1616, 1625, 1630).
source: The Scornfull Lady, after 1616, before 1635, described as BEPD 334, states (a)–(c).
The Winter’s Tale (1631)
There are no significant textual differences between the extracts from this play found in its two editions, one from 1623 (in STC 22273) and the other from 1632 (in STC 22274).
source: F1 (1623), containing BEPD 397(a), or F2 (1632), containing BEPD 397(b).
A King and No King (1636)
Wiggins reports a printed quarto text of 1619 (Q1, STC 1670) and a printed quarto text of 1625 (Q2, STC 1671). He notes that Q2 is a “corrected edition, with a brief additional passage in 3.1.” Cotgrave appears to be using the corrected text of the second quarto by way of its reprinting in the third quarto of 1631 (STC 1672). In the final two printings of the play before the Restoration—1631 and 1639 (STC 1673)—the expression “Thy faith as firm as raging overflows” (141.6–) becomes, presumably through compositorial error, “Thy faith is firm as raging overflows”. Preferring 1631 over 1639, 141.6– shares the same contraction as the former: “in the air” (1619, 1625), “in th’air” (1631, Cotgrave), “i’th air” (1639).
source: A King and No King (1631), described as BEPD 360(c).
Catiline’s Conspiracy [Catiline His Conspiracy] (1646)
Wiggins identifies a single printed text of 1611 (STC 14759, Q1) as “from an authorial manuscript”. Most likely Cotgrave worked from the quarto printing of the text, rather than the reprinting of the play in Ben Jonson’s 1616 Workes (STC 14751, F1). One potential variant for any of the Q-printings can be found in 63.5, where Cotgrave includes “after Ages” vs “after-ages” (F1, F2), similar to Q1’s “after Ages” or Q2–Q3’s “after ages”. No evidence from any other passage links back to Workes for the other Jonson plays: see Every Man in His Humour (1143), Every Man Out of His Humour (1216), Cynthia’s Revels (1269), Poetaster (1296), and Sejanus His Fall (1412). Also, see Volpone (1493), whereof my results differ from Wiggins’s. It seems unlikely that Cotgrave relied on either Q2 or Q3 based on a number of textual variants particular to those printings. For instance, he includes “unlike the Eye” in 10.7–, instead of “much like the Eye” (Q2, Q3); and he includes “taste of woman” in 50.10–, instead of “taste of women” (Q2, Q3). In 238.7– Cotgrave omits the three exclamation points that distinguish F-printings from Q (commas, end stop). Many of the extracts selected by Cotgrave have gnomic pointing in Q but not in F, which may have assisted him in his selection: 75.6, 97.5, 102.2, 107.6, 150.3, 152.3, 217.4, 247.2, 252.3, 268.3, 268.4, and 270.6.
source: Probably Catiline his Conspiracy (1611), described as BEPD 296(a), but possibly The Workes, after 1616, containing BEPD 296, states (b) or (e).
[Greene’s Tu Quoque, or] The City Gallant (1649)
Wiggins identifies the 1614 text (STC 5673, Q1) as “from an authorial manuscript”. Two other editions are recorded: a second edition of 1622 (STC 5674, Q2) and an undated edition (STC 5675, Q3), likely printed after 1628. Only one variant appears among the extracts in the undated printing: “ith” (i.e., “i’th”), vs “in” in 1614 and 1622 (237.3).
source: Greenes Tu quoque (1614), described as BEPD 323(a), or Greenes Tu quoque (1622), described as BEPD 323(b).
The Maid’s Tragedy (1650)
Wiggins identifies two substantive texts of The Maid’s Tragedy: an A-text printed in quarto in 1622 (STC 1678) and a B-text printed in quarto in 1619 (STC 1676). According to Greg’s Bibliography, “the text of [Q2, 357(b), 1622] and subsequent editions differs considerably from, and is fuller than, that previously printed.” As such, BEPD 357(a) contains Wiggins’s B-text, while his A-text is represented by BEPD 357(b) 1622, BEPD 357(c) 1630, BEPD 357(d) 1638, and BEPD 357(e) 1641.
Wiggins attributes all of Cotgrave’s extracts to “the A-text,” presumably based on the variants “Turne” for “Turnes” and “wine” for “winde” in both the A-text and Cotgrave (184.1). We can perhaps be more precise. Editions 1630 and after share the variant of “its horrid point” vs “his horrid point” with extract 109.3.
source: The Maides Tragedy, after 1630, described as BEPD 357, states (c)–(e).
The Tempest (1652)
There are no significant textual differences between the extracts from this play found in its two editions, one from 1623 (in STC 22273) and the other from 1632 (in STC 22274).
source: F1 (1623), containing BEPD 390(a), or F2 (1632), containing BEPD 390(b).
Henry VIII (1674) [also known as All is True]
There are no significant textual differences between the extracts from this play found in its two editions, one from 1623 (in STC 22273) and the other from 1632 (in STC 22274).
source: F1 (1623), containing BEPD 400(a), or F2 (1632), containing BEPD 400(b).
The White Devil (1689)
Wiggins describes the 1612 printed text (STC 25178) as deriving “from authorial copy, probably foul papers”. A series of variants show that Cotgrave used mainly the 1612 text for his extracts, although one or more extracts may be derived from the 1631 printing (STC 25179).
In 181.4, Cotgrave clearly follows 1612 with “my face” instead of “his face”—a striking difference as he often prefers more ambiguous, impersonal terms throughout. In 290.1, Cotgrave includes two strong variants of the 1612. Both Cotgrave and 1612 have “at Gallowes” instead of “at th’gallowes”, and both have “gilt counterfiet” instead of “guilty counterfeit”. The one variant of 1631—“brings” vs “bring”—seems arbitrary in the context of the passage, given Cotgrave’s regular methods of adapting his source texts.
Cotgrave may follow 1612 with “so affliction” instead of just “affliction” (3.7), and he appears to follow 1612 in the unusual patterns of punctuation (231.3), which recast the final line for a completely different meaning from the earlier composition. Leaving open the possibility that he used both editions, 137.6 follows 1631 with “worse” rather than “worser”, and in 144.3, both Cotgrave and 1631 have “lead” instead of “to lead”.
source: The White Divel (1612), described as BEPD 306(a), and possibly The White Divel (1631), described as BEPD 306(b).
The Duchess of Malfi (1726)
Wiggins describes the printed text of 1623 (STC 25176) as “from a scribal transcript by Ralph Crane, possibly of a prompt-book”, noting a possible “textual lacunae” in 2.3. A second edition of the play appeared in 1640 (STC 25177) with minor textual variants from the first, possibly suggesting that Cotgrave read and used both editions.
Among the 42 quotations in English Treasury—the play is the third most quoted work of the book—four extracts have variants from the 1640 printing, while four extracts have variants from the 1623 edition. The extracts of 1640 reflect great variety and are more convincing to draw a source, but the pattern of variants for 1623 seems strong enough to allow for Cotgrave’s use of two texts.
Concerning 1640, Cotgrave includes “curded” instead of “cruded” (30.4–), uses “ore” instead of “are” (33.9–), follows with “his” instead of “her” (119.3), and has “never” where 1623 gives “ever” (268.2). In regard to 1623, Cotgrave has “tetter” instead of “terror” (243.7), “most” where “must” (1640) might make sense (245.8), “raise” for “rise” of 1623 (215.3), and copies the phrase “as is woman” rather than “as this woman” (302.7–).
source: Both The Dutchesse of Malfy (1623), described as BEPD 389(b), and The Dutchesse of Malfy (1640), described as BEPD 389(b).
A Fair Quarrel (1798)
Wiggins reports on two early versions of the play, an A-text expressed by the 1617 first quarto (STC 17911), “from a fair copy of authorial foul papers,” and a B-text of the play reissued as the first quarto “with an additional scene (4.4).” A second edition based on the B-text appeared in 1622 (STC 17912, Q2).
Although Cotgrave does not copy any extract from the additional scene of the Q1 variant, several textual differences show that he relied on the Q1 text in either of its states (so, first quarto, but either the A or B text). In 33.4 Cotgrave and Q1 give “never merit” vs “ever merit” from Q2; in 91.4 Cotgrave gives “often does the tongue take”, which is more similar to “does the tongue often take” (Q1) than “does the tongue take” (Q2); and in 217.5, Cotgrave follows Q1 with “onely war” vs “one warre” of Q2.
source: A Faire Quarrell (1617), described as BEPD 352(a).
The Devil is an Ass (1810)
Wiggins describes the printed text of 1631 (STC 14753.5, F1). Of the 1631 edition of this play, W. W. Greg writes that “Copies are known to differ in a number of readings in the formes P2.3(0), Y2.3(0), and on V1v,” and that “On Y2v a misprint has been erased and a correction stamped in in some copies” (BEPD, p. 2:605). Of the edition of 1641 (Wing J1011, F2), he writes that “Copies are known to differ in a few readings in G1.4(o,i).” No differences between these editions appear from the EEBO surrogates—the Harvard University copy of STC 14753.5 and the Yale copy of Wing J1011.
source: The Diuell is an Asse (1631), described as BEPD 457(a), or The Workes. The Second Volume (1641), containing BEPD 457(b).
Rollo, Duke of Normandy [first printed as The Bloody Brother] (1841)
Wiggins records two substantive witnesses, a first quarto of 1639 (STC 11064), with “non-authorial literary embellishments,” and a second quarto of 1640 (STC 11065), from “a prompt-book or a transcript thereof.” Extracts of this play combine complex variants from both editions, to the extent Cotgrave may have been working from a lost edition or manuscript. Extract 5.4 preserves “the” in “the truth,” potentially following 1640; similarly, extract 122.6 contains the singular “leave,” in “but never leave his nature” (1640), vs “leaves” of 1639. Nevertheless, the 23-line extract of 17.2– combines three variants from 1639 with two of 1640: seemingly from the 1639, it gives “compact” for “compacted,” “of” for “that,” and “waiting” for “wait.” But potentially from 1640, the extract has “we” for “I” and “these were” for “those new.” No clear rationale of adaptation would explain the mixture of variants from these two states, with regard to tense or the number of elements described in the passage.
source: The Bloody Brother (1639), described as BEPD 565(a), or Rollo Duke of Normandy (1640), described as BEPD 565(b).
Thierry, King of France, and his Brother Theodoret [Thierry and Theodoret] (1842)
A first edition of the play appeared in 1621 (STC 11074, Q1), followed by a second edition in 1648 (Wing F1352), printed in columns. Two variants suggest that Cotgrave used the 1621 edition as his source. Extract 70.10– includes “And Kings from height of all their painted glories, / Fall, like spent exhalations to this Center.” In the 1648 edition, “exhalations” becomes “exhaltations,” possibly construed as ‘exaltations’ (feelings of elation or rapture). In 269.3, the edition of 1648 includes the typographical error “though” for “thought,” which Cotgrave may be assumed to correct or leave unaltered.
source: Thierry King of France, and his Brother Theodoret (1621), described as BEPD 368(a).
The Elder Brother (1866)
Wiggins identifies texts of The Elder Brother from 1637 (STC 11066, Q1), BL MS Egerton 1994, and 1650 (Wing B1585, Q2). Sonia Massai, in “Editorial Pledges in Early Modern Dramatic Paratexts” (2011), describes the edition of “1650–1” as containing an editorial pledge. The pledge, printed by an unknown stationer for Humphrey Moseley, describes that printing of the play as “The second Edition, Corrected and Amended”. Massai confirms that the edition is from “annotated and corrected copy” (p. 97). There appears to be no substantive variants distinguishable among the passages: the EEBO transcript of 140.2 (1637) records the first “and” of the passage as “an”, which is an error.
DEEP states that the second edition dated 1637 (BEPD 515[b]) “was probably a pirated edition issued by Francis Kirkman and printed by Thomas Johnson”, citing Johan Gerritsen, “The Dramatic Piracies of 1661,” Studies in Bibliography 11 (1958): 117–31. It notes that they “have retained it in DEEP because it may have appeared prior to the end of 1660.”
source: The Elder Brother (1637), described as BEPD 515(a), or The Elder Brother (1650), described as BEPD 515(c).
The Tragedy of Nero (1917)
Wiggins describes the printed text of 1624 (STC 18430), as from “authorial foul papers (or an independent transcript thereof)”, and the manuscript copy in BL MS Egerton 1994, as a “scribal transcript of authorial foul papers”. There is a second edition of 1633 (STC 18431). Most likely, Cotgrave relied on the first edition for his passages. In 48.6, Cotgrave follows 1624 with “though’t” instead of “thought” (1633), a substantive given the context of the passage. In 226.3, he appears to take one variant from 1624 (“I Achilles” vs “I’d Achilles”), and the passage includes one from 1633 (“a Play” vs “Play”). Extract 254.6 gives one potential variant of 1633 in “Courts” vs “Court” (1633, Cotgrave).
source: The Tragedy of Nero (1624), described as BEPD 410(a).
The Heir (1943)
Wiggins describes the printed text of 1622 (STC 17713, Q1). Two clear variants in extract 167.2 reveal Cotgrave to be following the second edition of 1633 (STC 17714a, Q2). Where the former gives “year” and “irremouable” (not removable) the latter and Cotgrave give “years” and “irremeable” (irreversible).
source: The Heire (1633), described as BEPD 384(b).
The Mayor of Queenborough [Hengist, King of Kent (MS)] (1950)
Wiggins describes three early witnesses: the Lambarde MS, the Portland MS, and the printed text of 1661 (Q1, Wing M1984), from “a late literary manuscript prepared for use as printer’s copy.” These early texts constitute an A-text and B-text, with A comprising the “MSS” or “original version” and B the quarto, which is a “version substantially abridged, with a smaller number of inserted passages, and numerous minor verbal variants; the heaviest streamlining in 5.1.”
Following G. E. Bentley in “John Cotgrave’s” (1943), we know that Cotgrave probably relied on a manuscript or lost printed version of the B-text that is similar to the 1661 quarto. Bentley has written on the subject: “[T]here are twelve quotations attributed to Middleton’s The Mayor of Quinborough, which was not published until 1661. All quotations are correctly attributed [in the BL copy] and accurately transcribed. Since in this case there is no known earlier edition of the play and since it is not known to be a derivative play…, the text of The Mayor of Quinborough which Cotgrave used was probably a manuscript.… [T]wo manuscripts of the piece are still extant, one in the Folger Library and one in the Library of the Duke of Portland at Welbeck Abbey.… It is somewhat more probable, however, that Cotgrave used a third manuscript, the one from which the quarto was set up. Among the 65 lines which Cotgrave quotes from The Mayor of Quinborough are to be found fourteen instances where readings in the two manuscripts at the Folger Shakespeare Library and Welbeck Abbey differ from the readings in the quarto of 1661. In every instance, Cotgrave has the reading of the quarto and not of the two extant manuscripts” (pp. 192–93).
source: A manuscript text resembling The Mayor of Quinborough (1661), described as BEPD 815(A).
The Virgin Martyr (1957)
There are no significant textual differences between the extracts from this play found in its three editions, one from 1622 (STC 17644a), another from 1631 (STC 17645), and the last from 1651 (Wing M1052).
source: The Virgin Martir, after 1622, containing BEPD 380(a), 380(b), or 380(c).
The Duke of Milan (1994)
The extracted passages from this play are virtually identical across its two editions: 1623 (STC 17634) and 1638 (STC 17635).
source: The Duke of Milan, after 1623, containing BEPD 386(a) or 386(b).
A Game at Chess (2130)
Wiggins records eight witnesses “all dating from 1624–5, each with a different state of the text”; he notes that an “early draft … lies behind [Folger MS V. a. 231, the ‘Archdall’ MS]”, whereas “revision … lies behind all the other witnesses”, including the printed texts of 1625 (STC 17882, Q1; STC 17883, Q2; STC 17884, Q3). Collation of the printed texts supports Wiggins’s conclusion that the three extracts come “from the B-Text.” However, we can be more precise. Cotgrave used the third quarto (STC 17884). For instance, in 44.7, he gives “but lean” vs “lean”, “but for the” vs “but the”, “is at the last gasp” vs “That’s at the last gasp”; “a huge bulk” vs “the hug[e] bulke”; and “Mouse-flesh” vs “man’s flesh”.
source: A Game at Chesse (1625), described as BEPD 412(c).
[The School of Compliment, performed as] Love Tricks (2158)
Wiggins describes the printed text of 1631 (STC 22456, Q1) as “probably from authorial copy.” A second edition appeared in 1637 (STC 22457, Q2). More likely, Cotgrave follows the 1631 edition as he includes “some times” instead of “sometimes” (184.5–)—in context, the difference is substantive.
source: The Schoole of Complement (1631), described as BEPD 441(a).
The Wedding (2184)
Wiggins describes the printed text of 1629 (STC 22460, Q1) as “from an authorial fair copy”. There is a second edition of 1633 (STC 22461, Q2). On very slight evidence, the text of 1633 is preferred: 305.4 has “sounds”, following 1633, whereas in 1629 the word is “sound”.
source: The Wedding (1633), described as BEPD 425(b).
[The Grateful Servant, performed as] The Faithful Servant (2287)
Wiggins describes the printed text of 1630 (STC 22444, Q1) as “from copy with some theatrical markings”, noting that “the text has been amended in 5.2 to reflect a change of title.” There is a second edition of 1637 (STC 22445, Q2). In 293.3, slight evidence prefers the 1637 edition, which shares with Cotgrave the expression “very smile” vs 1630’s “every smile”.
source: The Grateful Servant (1637), described as BEPD 429(b).
The Muses’ Looking-Glass (2313)
Wiggins identifies a single text of The Muses’ Looking Glass (STC 20694, 1638, Q1) as one that “may have been revised, perhaps after 1632”. The play was later reprinted in octavo as part of the collection Poems with the Muses’ Looking Glass and Amyntas (1640, 1643, 1652). Cotgrave furnishes a single extract from the play, 258.5, which shows no variants among the different printings of the passage. Editions of the play often appear bound with copies of Jealous Lovers (see 2365, below).
source: Poems with the Muses Looking-Glasse; and Amyntas (1638), described as BEPD 547, states (a)–(d).
The Jealous Lovers (2365)
Wiggins describes the first printed text of 1632 (STC 20692, Q1) as from a “revised authorial copy.” Following two editions in quarto (1632, 1634), the play appeared independently in the octavo format in 1640 (STC 20693a, O2). In the octavo state, it often appears in the collection Poems with the Muses’ Looking Glass; and Amyntas, where it is bibliographically independent (1640, 1646, 1652). Collation of all the quarto and octavo texts reveals no substantive variants. Notably, the 1652 edition claims to be “enlarged”.
source: The Jealous Lovers (1632), described as BEPD 469, states (a)–(e).
The City Wit [or the Woman Wears the Breeches] (2419)
Wiggins describes the printed text of the play (Wing B4866; O, 1653) as from “the prompt-book of a revival.” However, it is likely that Cotgrave worked from a manuscript copy or a lost printed edition of the play, potentially from a fragment. Further discussion of this topic is pending publication.
source: A lost fragment (manuscript or print) of The City Wit.
The Conspiracy (2459)
Wiggins describes two early versions of The Conspiracy, an A-text printed in folio in 1653 (Wing K444A), and a B-text, printed in quarto in 1638 (STC 14958). Cotgrave includes fifteen extracts from the B-text, with textual variants linking back to the B-text in six of them, while only one variant links back to A. Additionally, three extracts appear exclusively in the B-text. For instance, extract 4.4 omits “left”; 30.2 omits the first four lines; 75.5 includes “doth bring” for “Law administers” and “the summons” for “Your Summons”; 88.2 includes “would” and omits the final lines (after “and when”); 131.4 includes many B-variants; and 152.8– has “blow” for “Strike”, “another” for “anothers”, and omits “hereafter because he had no fault”. Extracts 179.4–, 241.1, and 289.4 appear exclusively in the B-text. Comparatively, 88.2 follows A, with “service to” vs “service for”.
source: The Conspiracy (1638), described as BEPD 537(a).
Aglaura (Number not assigned), presumptively in Volume X.
Aglaura exists in a lavishly printed folio (F, 1638; Wing 23420) and a cheaper, pocket-sized octavo (O1, 1646; Wing S6121A). Both printings reflect great care on behalf of the stationers involved. The latter was reprinted in 1648 (O2, 1648; Wing S6127). One slight variant encourages F as Cotgrave’s source (“throw” vs “through”) in Cotgrave and F (68.6); however, Cotgrave certainly owned and used the O1 printing of Brennoralt (Discontented Colonel), which was sold as bibliographically integral to (not bibliographically independent from) the later printing in O1. Cotgrave appears to use “throw” and “through” interchangeably at other points (e.g., 101.2). Based on the extracts of Brennoralt, Cotgrave probably used O1 (). Discouraging the edition of 1648, extract 175.3 of that version includes the plural “bittorns” versus the singular of the other versions and Cotgrave, “Bittorne”.
source: Most probably Aglaura, in Fragmenta Aurea (1646), containing BEPD 541(b).
The City Match (Number not assigned), presumptively in Volume X.
Jasper Mayne’s The City Match, akin to Sir John Suckling’s Aglaura , initially appeared in a sumptuous folio edition (F, 1639; STC 17750), later followed by a smaller, cost-effective octavo edition (O, 1659, Wing M1467). However, in contrast to Suckling’s plays featured in English Treasury, The City Match was not reprinted before Cotgrave’s book. This absence implies that if Cotgrave sourced his extracts from a published edition—assuming only one edition of the play existed—his sole reference was the 1639 edition.
Considerable evidence from Cotgrave’s five extracts of The City Match suggests his source being a lost manuscript or lost printed edition. Specifically, extracts 41.6 and 45.2 diverge so extensively from their printed text that Martin Wiggins, in his foundational assessment of Cotgrave’s extracts from lost plays, deemed them unidentifiable (“Where to Find”, p. 267 & p. 271). Additionally, while discrepancies between these two passage could hint at Cotgrave’s editorial intervention, a comprehensive analysis of the other passages reveals them to be distinct compared to extracts from his other plays. For example, 300.5 concludes with what might appear as a condensation of multiple lines from the play into a new final line. However, this potential condensation extends beyond a single line in Cotgrave’s extract and begins with a modified passage opening.
source: A lost fragment (manuscript or print) of The City Match.
The Discontented Colonel [later printed as Brennoralt] (Number not assigned), presumptively in Volume XI.
There appear clear textual variants between the printing of the play as Discontented Colonel in 1642 (Q, Wing S6125) and as Brennoralt in Fragmenta Aurea, the collection of Suckling plays first printed in 1646 (O1, Wing S6126A). Evidence in the form of numerous textual variants points to Cotgrave’s use of the 1646 collection, seemingly exclusively. Wiggins’s entry on the play, as yet unprinted and of which I have no information, seems likely to re-assert these conclusions. Variants include: 31.3 follows O1 with “And it”; 57.7– follows O1 with “to get in” vs “get in” and “names” vs “name”; 137.4 follows O1 with “I wonder” included in line one; 171.4 follows O1 with “offers” vs “offer”; 171.6 follows O1 with “unjust to you” vs “unjust”; 187.5 follows O1 with “very destructive” vs “destructive” and “more than” vs “than”; 218.3 follows O1 with the addition of “and” before “those”; 268.5– follows O1 with “betwixt” vs “t’wixt”, “the vice” vs “shall be the vice”, and “paint” for “point”; and 310.3 follows O1 with “acquaintances” for “acquaintance”. Several extracts follow the unusual lineation of verse, unique to the O-printing: 101.2, 112.1, 137.3, 137.4, 171.4, 171.5, 287.3, and 302.6. Showing that Cotgrave used the 1646 edition of the collection rather than the subsequent reprinting in 1648, extract 171.5 includes “unmarried again” vs “married again” (1648).
source: Fragmenta Aurea (1646), containing BEPD 621(b).
The Goblins (Number not assigned), presumptively in Volume X.
Editions of Goblins appear in the collection Fragmenta Aurea, 1646 (Wing S6129, O1), and 1648 (Wing S6127, O2). Since Cotgrave used O1 of Brennoralt, which was part of the collection, there is good circumstantial evidence to support that he used O1 of Goblins. Further circumstantial evidence appears in the form of lineation. Extract 150.6 constitutes the last two lines of the play in the 1646 text; whereas, in the 1648 text, it constitutes part of the penultimate line and all of the last line (the compositor condenses three lines into one because he has reached the bottom of his page). A similar passage to 150.6 appears in May’s Old Couple (Wing M1412), as discussed in the Extracts section ().
Or. A Life! a Friend! a Brother! and a Mistres!
Oh! what a day was here:
Gently my Joyes distill,
Least you should breake the Vessell you should fill.
—Suckling, Goblins, in Fragmenta Aurea, 1646, sig. D8r, 5.2.286–87.
Or. A Life! A Friend! a Brother! and a Mistres!
Oh, what a day was here! gently my Joyes distill,
Lest you should breake the Vessell you should fill.
—Suckling, Goblins, in Fragmenta Aurea, 1648, sig. D8r, 5.2.286–87.
Gently my joys distill,
Lest you do break the Vessell you should fill.
—ET, 150.6.
source: Fragmenta Aurea (1646), containing BEPD 628(a).
The Lost Lady (Number not assigned), presumptively in Volume X.
Greg records two editions of The Lost Lady, a play that also exists in a manuscript copy that has been fully digitized for LUNA: Folger Digital Image Collection (). Edition BEPD 534(a) (STC 1901.5, F1) survives in a single copy. Greg writes, “The edition appears to have been printed for private use. The only copy recorded has a number of manuscript alterations, most of which were adopted in (b)” (p. 2:673). Cotgrave appears to have used BEPD 534(b) (STC 1902, F2) as illustrated clearly by the variant of extract 74.3. In Folger BEPD 534(a) an ink mark deletes the word “closely” from “They seldome let us closely know what is to come”; in BEPD 534(b), of which Greg records nine copies (ESTC records 10), the same phrase appears as “They seldome let us know what is come”, enacting the deletion of BEPD 534(a). Cotgrave follows (b) in the single instance of substantive variation.
source: The Lost Lady (1638), described as BEPD 534(b).
Unidentified Extracts
At present, there remain fifteen extracts that defy identification, appearing seemingly unidentifiable. This marks an advancement from Wiggins’s “Where to Find Lost Plays” (2014), which tallied 18, and Bentley’s “John Cotgrave’s” (1943), which documented a total of 168 (157 being blank and 11 residing on missing leaves, according to his assessment).
The subsequent table delineates the exact count of errors juxtaposed with quasi-errors. These are denoted by the abbreviations and symbols detailed in the Notes section of this web project.
| Location | ✓ | {✓} | {✘} | ✘ | – |
| B | 1,438 | 36 | 21 | 20 | 186 |
| BL | 1,435 | 31 | 23 | 20 | 180 + 12 (missing leaf) |
| N | 1,434 | 4 | 30 | 30 | 203 |
| F | 1,662 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 36 |
“Vpon SEIANVS”
In this extract, Cotgrave references a commendatory verse composed by William Strachey. This verse is affixed to the 1605 edition of Ben Jonson’s work Sejanus His Fall. Notably, this specific extract stands as the sole instance of a quotation from English Treasury not originating from the play itself, but rather from the introductory or prefatory sections of a play-text.
If men will shun swolne Fortunes ruinous blastes,
Let them vse Temperance. Nothing violent lasts.
—Strachey, “Vpon SEIANVS”, sig. A3r.
IF men wil[l] shun swoln fortunes ruinous blasts,
Let them use Temperance, nothing violent lasts.
—ET, 272.3.
()