The King’s Entertainment, A Panegyre, and the Entertainment at Althorp were printed in 1604, in a composite quarto that brought together all three of the festival texts that Jonson had written for the Stuart accession. This is one of Jonson’s most complex publications, and was calculated to bring him into public and royal notice, drawing attention to the skill and learning with which he celebrated the event, and publicizing a seemingly personal bond between the new monarch and the poet. The title page of The King’s Entertainment (reproduced in the print edition) puts Jonson’s name at the head and distinguishes his work from Dekker’s by emphasizing that this is ‘B. JON. his part’ of the royal entry. The marginalia and the attention to detail shown in typography and layout are calculated to give an appearance of prestige and monumental scholarship, while waspish asides in the text underline the superiority of Jonson’s work to that of other contributors to the celebrations.
This, though, was only one of several festival books produced in the wake of the royal entry. It was followed into print by Dekker’s narrative of the occasion, The Magnificent Entertainment Given to King James, Queen Anne his Wife, and Henry Frederick the Prince, upon the Day of His Majesty’s Triumphant Passage from the Tower through His Honourable City and Chamber of London, being the 15 of March 1603, which the title page stated was printed for Thomas Man by T. C. (Thomas Creede: but see further discussion below). This quickly went into a second, enlarged edition, now called The Whole Magnificent Entertainment, and a Scottish edition was printed at Edinburgh by Thomas Finlayson. These were followed in June by Stephen Harrison’s magnificently illustrated volume The Arches of Triumph Erected in Honour of the High and Mighty Prince James, the First of that Name King of England and the Sixth of Scotland, at His Majesty’s Entrance and Passage through His Honourable City and Chamber of London upon the 15 th Day of March 1603 , with engravings of all the seven London arches made by William Kip. This was the work of John Windet, printer to the city of London, and is the single most important illustrated English festival book from the period. It was printed with the cooperation of Dekker and Middleton, who each wrote commendatory verses for it. There also appeared an eyewitness narrative of the celebrations, by Gilbert Dugdale, The Time Triumphant, Declaring in Brief the Arrival of our Sovereign Liege Lord, King James, into England, his Coronation at Westminster; Together with his Late Royal Progress from the Tower of London through the City, To His Highness’ Manor of Whitehall; Showing also the Varieties and Rarities of All the Pageants Erected . . . by the Worthy Citizens of the Honourable City of London (printed by R. Blower) . This was written in the wake of Jonson’s and Dekker’s accounts, for it draws on them both at various points. Dugdale’s only other known publication is another news pamphlet from 1604, describing the trial of Elizabeth Caldwell, who had attempted to murder her husband. Interestingly, the library of the Earl of Macclesfield at Shirburn Castle once contained a composite volume consisting of copies of Jonson’s, Dekker’s, and Dugdale’s pamphlets, plus Daniel’s Vision of the Twelve Goddesses (1603), King James’s opening speech to the 1604 parliament, and the 1604 reprint of Richard Mulcaster’s account of Elizabeth’s 1559 London entry, The Queen’s Majesty’s Passage. Gabriel Heaton (2010), 267 speculates that, although the binding is eighteenth-century, these tracts were collected as a group at around the time of their original printing.
The prestige and news-worthiness of the royal entry ensured that there was a vigorous market for printed information about it. It also meant that these pamphlets were some of the period’s most complex small publications, given the urgency with which they were produced, and the demands that their often arcane content made on the printers. Analysis of the printing variants suggests that Jonson was more intimately involved in the production of this small quarto than he was with any other book in his career. Moreover, both The King’s Entertainment and The Magnificent Entertainment were put rapidly through the press, since Jonson’s volume was produced as a collaboration between two printers (Valentine Simmes and George Eld) and Dekker’s was a collaboration between Creede, Eld, Humphrey Lownes and two other unidentified printers. Shared printing was by no means an uncommon practice at this time (see Blayney, 1973), so it did not necessarily indicate urgency, but it seems likely that in both of these cases speed was the issue. Evidently each book was rushed into print to capitalize as much as possible on its topicality.
The relevant entries in the Stationers’ Register give some hint of competition between Blount and Man. Jonson’s King’s Entertainment was the first to be entered, on 19 March 1604, merely four days after the procession, and on the very day that the new parliament celebrated in the Panegyre opened:
Edward Blunt
Item by like Auctoritie [i.e. master Pasfeild and the Wardens] entred for his copy A Part of the Kinges Maiesties right royall and magnificent Entertainment through his honorable city of London the 15 of marche 1603 So muche as was presented in the first and laste of their Triumphall Arches / with a speech made for the presentacon in the [Strand] erected at the charges of the lordes knightes gentlemen and other thinhabitants of the City of Westminster with the liberties of the Duchie of Lancaster both done by BENIAMIN JOHNSON . . . . . vjd (Arber, 3.254 )
Dekker’s volume was entered to Thomas Man the younger two weeks later, on 2 April. His account was ex post facto, compiled in the wake of the event, whereas Jonson’s was already in preparation much earlier and was clearly first at the press (see below). But six weeks later, on 14 May, the following adjudication appeared in the Stationers’ Company Court Books:
Edw. Blunt
Tho. Man Jun’
ffor thendinge of the controu’sie between them about the booke of the pageantes yt is ordered that Edw Blunt shall dely’ all his Remayno’ thereof, (wch he saieth are 400) to Tho man. Receavinge of hym vjs for euery Reame thereof. Wch yt is ordered the said Tho man shall pay vnto hym (Jackson, 1957, 7)
It is difficult to be sure what the nature of this disagreement was, though the likeliest inference is that it signals some dispute over copyright in the material being printed. The prime function of Stationers’ Register entries was to protect the publishers’ rights of ownership in their manuscripts, and the near simultaneous appearance of two pamphlets giving rival narratives of the same events was sure to provoke a collision.
So who were the complainant and defendant on 14 May? Percy Simpson, believing that Jonson and his publisher must have been the victims of legal chicanery by Dekker and Man, assumes that the judgment was made in Man’s favour, and allowed him maliciously to disrupt the sale of Blount’s publication. Simpson traces this to the underlying antagonism between Dekker and Jonson, and speculates that Dekker wanted to get revenge on Jonson for having ‘supplanted’ him from the first arch, and that Man attacked Blount’s publication as part of this personal vendetta. (In fact, this notion that Dekker bore a grudge over the first arch is a misreading of his narrative in The Magnificent Entertainment; see commentary note to King’s Ent. 1.) This scenario assumes that Man had mounted a legal claim against Blount’s prior publication of Jonson’s arches, and that he was judged to deserve the award of Blount’s unsold copies, thus enabling him to (as Simpson puts it) ‘impound’ Jonson’s work (H&S, 7.78 ). Simpson’s interpretation depends on the assumption that Man, having registered the whole ‘magnificent Entertainment’ on 2 April – in effect the authorized narrative, as against Jonson’s more fragmentary description – thereby had a claim to own all publications deriving from the occasion, and attempted on this basis to block the dissemination of Jonson’s more limited narrative. If Dekker had written the ‘official’ account, Man could have argued to the Stationers’ Company officials that his title to ownership was infringed by the prior publication of Blount’s quarto. (This is also Fredson Bowers’s view in Dekker, Dramatic Works, 2.231.)
But there is no clear evidence for this reading. On the contrary, if chronology determined ownership, as was usually the case in the Stationers’ Register, then Blount’s entry of 19 March ought to have protected him against infringement of copyright by any other publisher, in which case Man was more likely to have been seen by the Stationers’ Court as the offending party. Two pieces of evidence point in this direction. One is the wording of Blount’s entry itself, which looks like a typical anticipatory entry, made to establish ownership of a manuscript yet to be printed. The wording is close to that of the title-page, but has some significant differences which suggest that it was transcribed from a manuscript rather than from the as yet unprinted book, in order to establish ownership of copy in advance of publication. The other is the delicate way in which Jonson’s arches are treated in Dekker’s printed narrative, which only briefly describes them, with bare summaries of their themes and no quotation at all of their verse. Dekker’s cool treatment of Jonson’s text has often been taken as a sign of the on-going personal antagonism between them, as if he was demonstrating his hostility to Jonson by his refusal to represent his rival’s contribution adequately. But it is more likely that this strategy reflects the legal situation affecting publication, and signals Man’s caginess about seeming to infringe Blount’s copyright. Man did not dare to reproduce in print words that were already licensed to another publisher.
So the more likely scenario is that Blount was the complainant and Man the defendant: Blount probably complained about the damage done to his perfectly legal sales by the publication of Man’s book, and the judgment was intended to give him some recompense for Man’s infringement of his copy. Blount’s unsold copies were withdrawn from the bookstalls, but they were not thereby ‘impounded’ as Simpson supposes, for Man paid Blount compensation, and by giving him 6 shillings a ream for the unsold sheets of 400 copies, he would have handed over around £2. This was less than Blount could have sold them for, but it was a considerable sum nonetheless, being roughly equivalent to the cost of the paper and presswork that had gone into them (see the representative calculations in Blayney, 1997 , 405-10 or 408, which scale down to ₤2 for 400 x seven sheets). So even if Blount was not making his expected profit, he was not out of pocket. He was the beneficiary, rather than the victim of this judgment, which was intended to compensate him for loss of sales.
This episode casts some useful light on the relative success of Jonson’s and Dekker’s publications. Assuming that Blount commissioned a print-run of around 800 copies, then by 14 May he had sold roughly half his stock. On the other hand, his objection to Man’s infringement of copyright suggests that the publication of Dekker’s more comprehensive narrative had driven down the market for Jonson’s – a deduction reinforced by the appearance of Dekker’s second edition, and by the Scottish reprint. Jonson’s prose may have been condescending towards Dekker’s pageantry, but Dekker’s pamphlet had much the greater public success. As for what happened to the unsold sheets, it is anybody’s guess, but the large number of fragmentary copies of Jonson’s pamphlet that survive, including several single sheets (one of which was recovered from a binding), may suggest that Man retrieved some of his fine by recycling the unsold copies in other ways than through sales on the bookstalls.
Bibliographically Blount’s quarto falls into two parts: the sheets containing The King’s Entertainment and A Panegyre have continuous signatures, but The Althorp Entertainment is printed on two sheets which are signed separately. The volume collates 4º: π2, A-E4, F2; 2A-B4. In greater detail: π1 blank, π2 general title page (verso blank), A1 blank, A2-E1v The King’s Entertainment, E2 Panegyre half-title (verso blank), E3-F1v Panegyre text, F2 blank; 2A1 Althorp half-title, 2A2-B4r Althorp text (2B4v blank). The King’s Entertainment and the Panegyre are unpaginated; Althorp is paginated 1-13 (starting on 2A2r), though in setting 2, state 1 of sheet 2A (inner) the pagination is lacking, and in setting 2 state 3, 2A3v is paged ‘6’ instead of ‘4’. There are no running titles. Anomalously, in sheets E and 2A signatures appear on all four rectos.
However, this two-part division is deceptive, for it conceals a more important structural separation between sheets π-B and C-2B. The reuse of the same ornament on E2 and 2A1 (the half-titles of the Panegyre and the Althorp Entertainment) is striking evidence for continuity of printing between the first and second parts of the volume, but the pattern of ornaments throughout the text demonstrates that there was a shift of printer in sheet C. Two print-shops were involved: those of Valentine Simmes (who is the printer whose initials appear on the title page) and George Eld.
Simmes is well known to Shakespeare editors, as he printed the first quartos of Richard III, Richard II, Much Ado about Nothing, Henry VI part 2, Henry IV part 2, and Hamlet. He worked from around 1585 onwards, and in 1622 was censured for printing unauthorized books. After King’s Ent. he went on to print Hymenaei, a scarcely less complex volume, and he also printed The Shoemakers’ Holiday, The Malcontent, and the A-text of Doctor Faustus, as well as Lodge’s Rosalynd (1598), Daniel’s Works (1601), Montaigne’s Essays (1603), Drayton’s Poems (1605), Alexander’s Monarchic Tragedies (1607), and Lanier’s Salve Deus Rex Judaeorum (1611). George Eld (d. 1624) became a freeman of the Stationers Company in 1600, and in 1604 married Frances Read, widow, successively, of the printers Gabriel Simson and Richard Read. Eld thereby acquired the presses and type inherited from her husbands’ shops. He often worked with the publisher Thomas Thorpe, for whom he printed Sejanus, Eastward Ho!, Volpone, and Two Royal Masques (i.e. Blackness and Beauty), as well as Shakespeare’s Sonnets. Other titles associated with his name are Troilus and Cressida, Chapman’s All Fools (1605), Day’s Travels of the Three English Brothers (1607), Middleton’s Trick to Catch the Old One (1608), Coryate’s Odcombian Banquet (1611), Camden’s Remains (1605), and Selden’s The Duello (1610).
Of the printers with whom Simmes engaged in shared printing, George Eld was his most frequent collaborator: only the year before King’s Ent. he had co-printed Montaigne’s Essays with Eld’s predecessor Richard Read (Read had also co-printed another Jonson text, the 1601 quarto of Every Man In, with Simon Stafford). The pattern of Simmes’s and Eld’s collaboration on King’s Ent. can be gauged from seven ornaments which are traceable elsewhere in other books printed by them. I am very grateful to Peter Blayney for supplying me with a substantial list of their ornaments from the immediately preceding and succeeding years, which recur in King’s Ent. What follows is a representative but by no means complete selection from Blayney’s comprehensive data:
| SIMMES | |
| King’s Ent. π2 | Cherub with spread wings in flowers |
| STC 749 | R.T., Two Tales Translated out of Ariosto: Simmes, 1597. K1 (title page) |
| STC 22314 | [W. Shakespeare,] The Tragedy of King Richard the Third: Simmes, 1597. A1 (title page) |
| STC 20053 | Plutarch, Inimicus Amicus: Simmes, 1601. A3 |
| STC 3022.8 | The Doctrine of the Bible: Simmes, 1604. A4, N7 |
| King’s Ent. A2 | Initial P with flowers |
| STC 7299 | Franciscus Junius, De Peccato Primo Adami: [Simmes], 1595. B3 |
| STC 3679 | [N. Breton,] : Simmes, 1600. A4 |
| STC 6259 | S. Daniel, A Panegyric Congratulatory: Simmes, 1603. D1 |
| STC 3735 | J. Bridges, Sacro-sanctum Novo Testamentum in hexametros versus translatum: Simmes, 1604. C1 |
| ELD, SIMSON, READ | |
| King’s Ent. C1 | Initial C with stag |
| STC 21532 | W. S., The True Chronicle History of Thomas Lord Cromwell: [Read], 1602. A2 |
| STC 14421 | England’s Wedding Garment: [Read], 1603. A2 |
| STC 13951 | D. Hume, De unione insulae Britanniae: Eld, 1605. A2 |
| STC 12135 | S. Goulart, Admirable and Memorable Histories, transl. E. Grimeston: Eld, 1607. B1 |
| STC 22244 | J. de Serres, A General History of France, transl. E. Grimeston: Eld, 1607. I6 |
| STC 3198 | J. Boemus, The Manners, Laws, Customs of all Nations: Eld, 1611. L7v |
| King’s Ent. D3v | Initial T in lace |
| STC 4173 | W. Burton, David’s Thanksgiving for the Arraignment of the Man of Earth: [Read?], 1602. A3, F3, H3 |
| STC 7120 | G. Downame, A Treatise Concerning Antichrist: [Read, Bradock and Creede], 1603. A2, 2A4, 2B8v, 2C3v, 2C7v, etc |
| STC 5782 | W. Cornwallis, The Miraculous and Happy Union of England and Scotland: [Eld], 1604 |
| STC 23337 | J. Stow, Annals: [Eld, Short and Kingston], 1605. 4X1v |
| STC 14782 | B. Jonson, Sejanus: Eld, 1605. ¶2 |
| STC 12135 | S. Goulart, Admirable and Memorable Histories, transl. E. Grimeston: Eld, 1607. P3v |
| STC 23820 | [T. Taylor,] The Beauties of Bethel: Eld, 1609. B1 |
| King’s Ent. D4 | Initial T with bear |
| STC 3869 | H. Broughton, A Letter to a Friend, touching Mardochai: [Simson], 1590 |
| STC 12135 | S. Goulart, Admirable and Memorable Histories, transl. E. Grimeston: Eld, 1607. R8, 2L1v, 2L7, 2O3 etc. |
| King’s Ent. E2, Althorp 2 A1 | Grotesques |
| STC 7120 | G. Downame, A Treatise Concerning Antichrist: [Read], 1603. A2, 2A1 |
| STC 11086 | R. Fletcher, A Brief and Familiar Epistle: [Read], 1603. A2, B1 |
| STC 12988 | J. Hayward, An Answer to the First Part of a Certain Conference: [Read], 1603. A3 |
| STC 17510 | R. Martin, A Speech Delivered to the King’s Most Excellent Majesty: [Read], 1603. A1 |
| STC 13951 | D. Hume, De unione insulae Britanniae: Eld, 1605. A3 |
| STC 5782 | W. Cornwallis, The Miraculous and Happy Union of England and Scotland: [Eld], 1604. A4 |
| STC 350 | W. Alexander, The Tragedy of Darius: Eld, 1604. A1 |
| STC 25633 | W. Wilkes, Obedience or Ecclesiastical Union: Eld, 1605. A2, B3 |
| STC 916 | St Augustine, Of the City of God: Eld, 1610. A6 |
| Althorp 2 A2 | Initial T with man and snake |
| STC 5867 | R. Cotton, A Direction to the Waters of Life: Simson, 1592. H2v |
| STC 25760 | W. Willymat, A Loyal Subject’s Looking Glass: Eld, 1604. K2v |
| STC 12166 | R. Grafton, A Little Treatise: [Eld], 1611. A11 |
| STC 3198 | J. Boemus, The Manners, Laws, Customs of all Nations: Eld, 1611. 2N6v |
It may be worth adding that Cornwallis’s Miraculous and Happy Union (see D3v, E2 and 2A1 above) was entered to Blount in the Stationers’ Register on 19 March, immediately before the entry for King’s Ent.
The separation signalled by the ornaments is verified by differences of type and format between the pamphlet’s two halves. The clearest difference is a change in the sizing of pages: sheets A-B are set with 32 lines to a page and a stick of length 83mm, but C-2B are 28 lines long and set with a stick 88mm in length. Eld’s compositor had a predilection for more generous leading than Simmes’s: for example, the names of the deities on the arch at Temple Bar float in white space much wider than that used for the Fenchurch arch. Eld’s compositor also tended to put a stop at the ends of paragraphs even when the sense was incomplete (for example, the first paragraph on C1 and five paragraphs on the opening C3v-4r), whereas Simmes’s compositor favoured commas or colons. Eld frequently put a large space between a word and its ensuing punctuation, as at C1 lines 5, 6, 14, 18; C1v line 22; C2 line 20; C3 line 16; C3v line 3; and D3v lines 13 and 18; this also happens on Simmes’s pages, but less frequently. In setting Latin names and mottoes, Eld used only roman font and mixed large and small capitals, whereas Simmes made free use of italic capitals but employed only one size. A further distinguishing feature is a different approach to marginalia with the verse: Simmes set the reference marks in the text as letters inside parentheses, but Eld adopted small superscript letters. Finally, Simmes twice used paragraph symbols for structural shifts in the prose; Eld marked divisions with a rule (D3v).
The effect of these differences was to undermine the integrity of the publication. Although Simmes and Eld were working to broadly similar style sheets, the disparities between their compositors’ interpretation of Jonson’s intentions unsettle the unity of the volume as a whole. Unity is further diluted by the appearance of a second compositor, whom Eld used to set the Panegyre (E3-F1v). His presence is visible through a single idiosyncracy: in signing leaves, he placed a stop after the number. Perhaps this man was an apprentice, for his part is confined to six pages, and involves much the simplest passages of text.
Despite its comparatively brief length (7 sheets), this pamphlet was printed in two different shops, probably concurrently, and presumably with the intention of ensuring rapid execution. Here, though, we meet a rare circumstance, since although Eld printed the half-sheet F2, he must have returned it to Simmes’s shop in order for the title page to be impressed on the unperfected leaves – the half sheet π2. The possibility that π2 and F2 are conjugates was first suggested by Greg, who noticed a surviving fragment at Cambridge University Library (pressmark Syn.7.60.16). This consists of π2 (partially defective, with everything below ‘And other additions’ missing) and F1, and part of the two blank leaves π1 and F2 (which have each lost their outer edges). The leaves π1-2 and F1-2 are now separated from one another, but Greg speculated that they were ‘almost certainly’ conjugates (1939-59, 1.317 ). In a note contributed to the revised Short Title Catalogue (eds. Jackson, Ferguson, and Pantzer, 1976-91 ), 3.282, Peter Blayney has advised caution on this point, observing that since printing analysis shows that the type on π2 and F2 came from different shops they cannot originally have formed a single sheet. Yet on close examination this proves to be the case.
The Cambridge fragment is recovered from a binding. It was laid into the boards of a commentary on the Sentences of Peter Lombard, by Gregory of Rimini, printed at Venice in 1518 (CUL pressmark G*.9.17), but has been removed and separately conserved. A detailed re-examination by Eugene Giddens on behalf of CWBJ demonstrates that the two half-sheets were originally one and were severed in the course of binding. The upper edges of π2 and F2 are mirror images, the tears matching onto one another exactly. This is particularly clear on F1 and π1v, where a v-shaped nick 41mm from the edge and a further indentation 112mm from the edge are precisely symmetrical. Additionally, the binder made folds in the middle of F1 and π1v when laying them into the margin of the book. Since these folds are continuous, they must have been introduced before the halves were torn apart. The staining on π1, π2, F1v, and F2v can be matched to the glue on the back board of the sixteenth-century volume and shows that, when the sheet was laid into it, π2 was upside-down above F2 – as the two would have been positioned when still joined – and that a 23mm gap between the top and bottom halves had necessitated the introduction of the tear. (There is also a less extensive survivor in the Bodleian Library, Douce fragm. e. 42 (30***). This consists only of π2 and the blank π1, and yields no comparable bibliographical information.)
It appears, then, that Eld and Simmes both machined sheet π:F, though this was contrary to common practice, and also, it must be added, a costly and wasteful procedure. The sensible step would have been for Eld to continue work on Althorp on the other half of sheet F. Instead, he returned F to Simmes with only two pages impressed – and on opposite sides, so they were twice the work – and then began to print Althorp on a new gathering, using the signatures A and B for a second time. Perhaps the inference is that Althorp was not ready to be printed, and that a significant lapse of time separated the composing of sheets C-F and the work that Eld eventually undertook on 2A-B. The signs of haste in printing Althorp (discussed below) suggest it was a last-minute job. But then when Simmes received sheet F, he used one of its unperfected leaves for the general title, in spite of the fact that A1 was blank and could have been used for this purpose. This is, to say the least, extravagant use of materials at a time when paper was the costliest item in the printing process. This is a short publication, but its seven sheets have three blanks discarded in the binding, two of which come in the anomalous sheet F (and in the forme, π2 lies diagonally across the sheet from F1, so that no attempt was made to use the sheet economically by matching π2 with a paired leaf). Simmes’s lack of concern for wastage is perplexing, not least because it would have been easy to use the available space on F to reduce the need for two further sheets on which to print Althorp. Instead, he printed on seven sheets a group of texts that could easily have been accommodated on six.
Why should this have happened? One tempting answer is that there was uncertainty about what the volume’s contents should be, that delayed its appearance and meant that Althorp was only added to King’s Ent. and the Panegyre some time after they were completed. The fact that the signatures of Althorp are separate from the rest of the volume – even though Althorp is merely a pendant to the rest, as it has only a half-title, and finishes with a statement apologizing for its slightness in comparison with the other ‘more laboured and triumphal shows’ (302) – suggests that there may have been a gap in the printing. It is notable that neither the Stationers’ Register entry nor the general title page corresponds exactly to what was eventually issued. The Register specifies only the speeches for the three arches, and does not mention the Panegyre or Althorp, which were printed unentered. Presumably Blount was relaxed about their copyright since no one was likely to print them separately. He was more concerned to protect ownership of the speeches for the arches, which were potentially subject to dispute. But then, on the general title page, the Panegyre is named but not Althorp, Simmes promising the reader merely unspecified ‘Additions’. This open-ended wording contradicts what was published, for Althorp was simply one ‘addition’. Evidently when Simmes composed the title page he was in the dark about what the volume would finally contain.
So did Jonson intend to include any more panegyrical material, and if so, what? Aside from Althorp, there were no other texts that we know of from this period that could have been included, unless, of course, he was hoping to add some of his miscellaneous poetry, or up-coming commissions that might have arrived in the festivities of that spring. The obvious candidate in this perspective is the Entertainment at Highgate, performed at Sir William Cornwallis’s house on 1 May 1604. This is very similar in character to Althorp – Pan in that text is in some senses a rerun of Althorp’s Satyr – and as it was presented to James and Anne it belongs to the same family of welcomes as Althorp and King’s Ent. Highgate was first printed in F1, but Greg (1939-59 ) 1.484-5 pointed out that it bears the statement ‘By the same Author’ (F1, 879). This is superfluous in F1, but could easily have been carried across by a compositor or copyist if the manuscript had previously been prepared for printing as part of another volume. However, had Jonson wanted to include this text, it would have pushed back publication by six weeks or so. Greg (1.318 ) speculated that the adjudication of 14 May supported this possibility, if it was provoked by the publication of Jonson’s pamphlet in early May. However, this view depends on the presupposition that the complaint was Man’s reaction to the appearance of Jonson’s book when (as we have seen) the complainant was probably Blount; and if publication was so late, it seems odd that Highgate was not included in the collection. Rather, the absence of Highgate indicates that the volume may have been pushed out faster than was originally intended, without waiting for that text despite the open-ended wording of the title-page statement. Further, the adjudication shows that by 14 May Blount had already sold around 400 copies, and passages in The Magnificent Entertainment in which Dekker reacts to what he recognized as Jonson’s critique of his scholarship indicate that Dekker had the opportunity to read his rival’s narrative before completing his own. So on balance it seems more likely that the text was published promptly, and that no attempt was made to stitch in the Highgate Entertainment. The final paragraph of Althorp and the word ‘FINIS’ clearly demonstrate that this is intended to be the finished article. Nonetheless, the chaotic state in which some parts of Althorp were issued perhaps supports the idea that this section of the pamphlet was completed in a tearing hurry and that the presswork was inadequately supervised. Jonson can hardly have approved of the atrocious errors that appeared in the first setting of 2A inner, yet, the mess notwithstanding, substantial numbers of this sheet were issued.
In turning to the presswork, the volume emerges as one of the most intricately printed short books of the period, in which authorial tinkering or compositorial correction are apparent on almost every opening. Only in sheet F, which contains the relatively simple text of the Panegyre, is the relentless process of correction absent. Over three hundred variants were introduced in the course of printing, of which a significant minority are changes made currente calamo. Some formes survive in as many as five or six states, and a disproportionate amount of resetting took place. These features reflect the complexity of Jonson’s text, with its elaborate typographical arrangements and intrusive marginalia. Of his other works, only Sejanus involves such a concerted effort to convey his depth of learning, or to mimic the architectural features of the performance – notably the block type which reproduces inscriptions on the arches as if in monumental form, and the ornate boxed presentation of the formal lettering on the Temple Bar arch as if it were an archeologically correct Roman altar (on sig. D3). The changes are compounded by the evidence of rethinking that went on, as Jonson took opportunities during the printing process to improve the text or elaborate the notes. Page for page, no other printed text shows Jonson so clearly in the process of polishing his work.
But the changes also demonstrate the difficulties that the printers had in negotiating between the work’s intellectual ambition and the demands of the bookstalls. In many cases, the process of correction was overtaken by the speed of production, so that the most highly corrected states of individual sheets often survive in only a minority of copies. It also happens that correction in one part of a sheet is dogged by the simultaneous introduction of error in another, so that the creation of perfect copy was compromised by instabilities introduced as the formes were unlocked. In this respect, the dignity with which Jonson sought to invest the occasion carried within itself the seeds of its own failure. His attempt to give the occasion an aura of historic dignity and timely antiquarianism could not be reconciled with accidents caused by the speed of publication or with the practical limitations imposed by the demands of the market.
Thirty-five copies and fragments of Q survive, three of which have been purchased by private collectors in the last thirty years and are not available for collation (Heaton, 2010, 267-8: see Swann Galleries, New York, 15 April 1982, lot 118; Christie’s, New York, 19 May 1995, lot 170; and Sotheby’s, London, 13 March 2008, lot 3941). A full collation of the other thirty-two is presented at the end of this essay. The following analysis outlines the main changes sequenced by formes and discusses their rationale.
Sheet A inner, set by Simmes, is relatively clean, with nine variants spread across three states. Probably these changes originated with Jonson himself, as they involve the addition of Latin diacritics, and the insertion of a dash to indicate that a quoted Latin passage is a half-line (consistent with the convention used for fragmentary quotations on A4v and B1, for example). An early change made in this forme (now surviving only in one copy) was the removal of a redundant asterisk in A4. This may preserve an authorial change of heart, for asterisks are used by Simmes at A3 and A3v to mark the position of marginal notes which cannot otherwise be placed directly against the text to which they refer on account of their length. The asterisk in A4 has no marginalium attaching to it, and its removal perhaps suggests that Jonson originally intended to add a note here on the iconography of Euphrosyne but subsequently thought better of it. Alternatively, the printer may have removed it on recognizing that it was superfluous, but for the asterisk to be there in the first place there must have been something behind it in the manuscript. Perhaps the manuscript carried provision for a note that was deleted or never written. There is a similar missing note in sheet D (outer) of the Sejanus quarto (see Tom Cain’s Textual Essay on Sejanus).
Sheet A outer involved more radical corrections and was partially reset, creating a series of non-substantive changes in A2v. The rationale for this was a printer’s error, eyeskip between ‘the’ and ‘their’ at the foot of the page resulting in the omission of a phrase. In order to accommodate the missing words, the opening A2v:3r had to be rearranged. It is puzzling, though, why the whole of A2v was reset, given that the error was correctable by carrying over text from the end of A2v to the top of A3; notwithstanding, the more extensive change was made. This proved risky, for it left the reordered text out of alignment with the marginalia, so that Jonson’s marginal notes no longer stood beside the quotations to which they referred. This was remedied in a second stage of correction, and Jonson was probably involved in this, since a second opportunity was taken this time around to tinker with the Latin. Corrections were made in the long note on A3 and diacritics added on A4v; these are changes that point more strongly towards the author’s hand than the printer’s.
With B inner, changes were made to the marginalia on B3v:4, which were fully reset. These were technical improvements, not corrections: they remove ugly word breaks and alter the balance of the long note on B4, straightening up the right-hand margin. These changes could have been made independently by the printer, as they involve no finessing of the text, though since they are essentially cosmetic and from the printer’s view may have seemed otiose, it is likely that they were required by the author. (The conjugate leaves B1v:2 needed no change, for they each contain only one small note.)
Simmes’s greatest problems came with B outer, which underwent four stages of correction. Almost certainly the first stage was authorial, for it introduced Latin diacritics, altered the spelling of the rare word ‘Impreses’, and added a new marginal note explaining the reference in the text to Prince Charles and Princess Elizabeth. This last is a clear example of Jonson developing the marginalia as they went through the press, realizing in the process of proofing that the text needed more explication than he had given it. The marginalia were further adjusted in state 3 with the insertion of asterisks indicating the addressee of a speech, but in doing this the printer upset the note at the top of the page, and erroneously reset the abbreviation ‘Lactant.’ (= L. C. F. Lactantius, the early Christian author) as ‘Luctatius’, a name which is meaningless. Jonson must then have read proof for a second time, for in state 4 he tinkered with the text on B2v, corrected the Latin, and added diacritics on B3. However, he did not notice the non-existent name ‘Luctatius’, which was allowed to survive into the final impressions (and persists into the folio text). The fourth alteration, a correction to marginalia which had come out of position during the previous changes, looks to be compositorial. In general, the effect of these extensive and repeated adjustments was to improve the sheet, but its cost was the creation of new errors that persisted into the final state. It is, though, a telling comment on the contradictoriness of Jonson’s ambitions that neither he nor his readership seems to have registered that the pseudo-author Luctatius was a by-product of a corrector’s error.
With sheet C we reach Eld’s work, and immediately the story intensifies, with a higher frequency of corrections and some large-scale changes. Sheet C inner was completely reset. This happened at an early stage, as the first setting survives only in a single copy, at the University of Illinois. The rationale for this was both compositorial and authorial. Setting 1 has a large incidence of error, including formatting faults: particularly, the Latin needed thorough correction, and some of mottoes and names were printed in lower-case italic instead of upper-case roman. But the main impetus for resetting must have been Jonson’s decision to alter his convention for glossing the names of classical personifications. In the first setting, the allegorical personages on the arch have their Latin and Greek names in uppercase, centred and offset in white space. Their English names are given as shoulder notes in the margin, and in some cases (on C3) no translations are supplied at all, or the Greek is translated into Latin (C2v). But Jonson must have quickly decided – presumably on seeing the first pull of the sheet – to supply English translations for all the names, and to incorporate them into the narrative, probably recognizing that his original arrangement was unhelpful to the reader, and that it overloaded the already demanding marginalia. This necessitated the whole forme being reset in order to accommodate the extra text, in the course of which Jonson took the opportunity to introduce incidental improvements, correcting a reference to Ovid’s Fasti (marginal note 51) and changing ‘could’ to ‘should’ at 348.
After half the copies of setting 2 were machined, the press was stopped again to make further corrections, and to reset the notes on C1v, where the abbreviation ‘Alb.’ (for Albricius) had been mistakenly printed as ‘Abb.’, and to make some polishings to the text, particularly adjusting words that were affected by line-breaks (‘se- | mined’, 362; ‘bon- | dage’, 403). It seems likely that these were Jonson’s corrections, since one clarifies an arcane Latin allusion, and the other makes merely cosmetic changes. But if Jonson did correct the marginalia, he once again left another glaring error in place, for the word ‘imag.’ (= imaginibus) disappeared from note 46, where it is part of the title of Albricius’s work; without it the title is incomplete and ungrammatical. Once again, the finessing of detail had the unintended consequence of creating new error.
Since the resetting of C inner introduced a style for glossing allegorical names which was adopted through the whole pamphlet, it suggests that, in the sequence of composition, this was the first forme to be set. It seems unlikely that Jonson’s manuscript would adopt one convention for personifications in the first arch, change to a different convention for the second arch, then revert to the former in the resetting. Rather, it is likelier that the original manuscript used the less helpful glosses, then introduced the alternative mode after Jonson changed his mind when proofing C inner, and carried across the changes made in that forme into the rest of the manuscript. The first state of C inner demonstrates that the text was still fluid as it went into the press, and that at this stage Jonson was still making structural decisions about the shape of his narrative which were written back into the earlier sections. In which case, we may speculate that in the rush to publish this pamphlet, Eld was working ahead of Simmes, and perhaps even completed C-F2 before Simmes’s part was under way. If this is the case, it perhaps explains the anomalous treatment of the half-sheet F. If Eld had completed his work, and was not expecting to add Althorp, he could at this point have returned the unperfected sheet to Simmes, so that the printer named on the title page could begin his work and add the preliminary material.
Eld’s work on C outer was more straightforward, the seventeen corrections that were made involving no radical changes. The main difference comes with the long note on C4v, which was reset to adjust its position, and the alteration of the text at the head of this page to take over some additional words from C3v which could not be accommodated in the reset C inner. This perhaps shows that C outer was already set before it was decided to reset C inner; or more likely, that a few copies of this second state were machined in order not to waste those sheets that had been printed off from the first setting of C inner.
D inner gave Eld more headaches. It required no fewer than six states, with twenty-one corrections in total. Most likely Jonson read proof after state 3, as the changes introduced in state 4 seem authorial, involving alterations to improve the Latin and punctuation. He must have been responsible for correcting the rare words ‘PERENNA’ (473) and ‘Annare’ (marginal note 67), and particularly for altering the spelling of ‘Calender’ to ‘Kalender’ (470), which no printer was likely to do. Probably this was done for etymological reasons: in this arch, the theme of which is the turning year, ‘Kalender’ underscores the connection of the occasion with the kalends and the Roman calculus of time. States 1-3 are rare (each surviving in a single copy), which suggests that the forme went through rapid in-house correction before Jonson saw the proof-sheet.
But the forme was made doubly difficult because this is Jonson’s most heavily annotated section, with marginalia wrapped tightly around the speeches of Genius and the Flamen. Eld had no room for manoeuvre, since D3 consisted of the inscription on the Flamen’s altar, with its elaborate symmetry, mimicry of Roman typography, and boxed frame. This meant that Eld had no choice but to fit the speeches and notes onto D1v-2v. His problems in doing so are visible in the variant catchword on D1v, which shows him improvising as the passage was composed, and struggling to find the optimum casting-off for D2. In some copies, the catchwords of D1v and D2 are both incorrect. Eld set the notes first, but clearly expected that the text on D2 would be 493-519. Instead, the congestion on D1v and D2v meant that D2 had to be two lines longer than planned, creating the catchword inconsistency. The mistake on D2 was quickly spotted at the press, probably because the marginal note that accompanied 519 was already present on that page, but D1v was not corrected until state 4. Nor did the problems finish here, for when the forme was unlocked to correct some stray type on D1v, the ornamental initial on D4 was dislodged and incorrectly replaced: in two surviving copies it is upside down. Only when this was changed was this forme complete. D inner displays the formidable demands that Jonson’s ambitious volume made on the printers. In the circumstances, Eld’s treatment of this sheet was a triumph of typography over content.
The remaining sheets presented no such difficulties, and formes D outer to F have only fourteen variants between them. Several of these are Jonsonian, involving corrections to the Latin and punctuation. But, ironically, with the Althorp entertainment – which in comparison to what had already been set presented few technical problems – we encounter the book’s worst work, and some perplexingly uneconomical choices.
Althorp occupies four formes on two sheets, of which three were completely or partially reset. The resetting of 2A inner probably arose from compositorial negligence in the first setting, which contains several gross errors: an incorrect speech heading (‘SATIRE’ for ‘FAERY’), incorrect verse alignment in the song ‘This is she’, and a series of glaring misprints, ‘FAEKY’, ‘Oranas’ (for ‘Orianas’) and ‘Ban puet’ (for ‘Banquet’). Since the whole form was reset, one presumes that when Jonson finally saw the proofs he protested loudly against these shortcomings. Nonetheless, Eld did not remedy the situation completely, as large numbers of the incompetently set sheets had already been printed and were eventually bound up into the issued copies, notwithstanding their unsatisfactory state. Although Eld printed a new setting of this forme, he did not bother to discard the incompetent earlier work. Moreover, in the revised setting the page numbers were accidentally omitted, and although Eld rectified this in a revised state, it was not done accurately – in the last state of setting 2, 2A3v is numbered ‘6’ when it ought to be ‘4’. There is, then, no wholly satisfactory state of 2A inner.
2A outer was better printed, with only one serious mistake (in the marginalia to 2A4v) and with some defective typography on the half-title (2A1). One small error was introduced the correction of 2A4v, but this was quickly altered. Then on 2B inner and outer more extensive resetting occurs, though it is hard to see what is achieved by this as the sheets were relatively clean in their first versions. 2B inner is partially reset (on 2B1v), but the only significant error that is corrected lies elsewhere, on 2B3v. 2B outer is completely reset, but the gains involved are very small. Corrections are made to a few erroneous readings – ‘fauors’ for ‘sauors’ (148), ‘preferre’ for ‘preserue’ (155), ‘Speaker’ for ‘speech’ (218) – but two new errors are introduced (‘speacb’ for ‘speech’ at 219, and ‘womam’ for ‘woman’ at 261). Strikingly, although the press was stopped for a final time to make a single stop-press correction to the punctuation, the opportunity was not taken to correct the other errors.
Presumably Jonson was happy with Simmes’s and Eld’s work, for these printers would be used again in texts with complex layout and marginalia, such as Hymenaei (Simmes) and Sejanus (Eld). In many ways King’s Ent. is the precursor to the innovations made in the Sejanus quarto. But it is evident that Althorp was much less well-handled than the rest of the book, and that in places it was quite carelessly treated. It is arguably the worst printed work in the whole Jonson canon, and was issued with many glaring defects. Perhaps this is a sign not of incompetence so much as of haste, or competing priorities. Althorp was a much simpler text to set than those parts of King’s Ent. over which Eld had taken such care, so it is all the more perplexing that the printing was defective and was never properly remedied, while at the same time so much seemingly pointless and expensive resetting took place. The obvious rationale for resetting would be to increase the size of the print run, but since Althorp was a pendant to King’s Ent. and was never separately issued this could not have been the case. Since the first states survive in a minority of copies, the resetting seems to have taken place early in the run, perhaps indicating that Althorp’s production was disrupted, probably halted and restarted, in the course of which type was redistributed and had to be reset. Further than this it is difficult to go, though perhaps the reason lies in changes of plan, or the uncertainties over the volume’s content (described above), or other work taking place simultaneously in Eld’s shop, or imperfect communication between the two printers. Whatever the explanation, it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that these formes were thrown together with far less concern for quality than was shown in the rest of the volume.
The extracts from Jonson’s speeches reprinted in 1604 in Harrison’s Arches of Triumph have no independent authority but are transcribed from Q. The clearest sign of this is in sig. I (the speeches from the arch at Temple Bar), where Harrison reproduces readings from the fourth state of Q forme D (i), particularly the spelling ‘Kalender’ (470), the capitalization of ‘Place’ (490), and some of the altered punctuation. In general, Harrison carried across much of Q’s punctuation and typography, including capitalization, roman/italic alternation, inverted commas for sententiae, and occasional spellings. There is only one substantive variant, at 539 (‘seest’ for ‘seek’st’), which is an error. Blount’s name is not mentioned on the title-page of this work, but presumably Windet negotiated an arrangement with him which allowed him to reproduce text for which Blount owned the copy.
King’s Ent., Panegyre, and Althorp were reprinted in F1, occupying sigs. 4B1-4E1v (pp. 841-78); King’s Ent. appears on 4B1-4C5v, Panegyre on 4C6-4D2v, and Althorp on 4D3-4E1v. The text was taken from Q with minimal alteration. Two sections of the narrative were omitted, at King’s Ent. 578-84 and Althorp 298-305. These are passages in which the author talks directly to the reader, mentioning the arches ‘yet standing’ and expressing his compliments to Sir John Spencer as the patron of Althorp. Since they belonged specifically to the shaping of the quarto as an independent publication of 1604, they were redundant in the folio. F1 prefaces each description of the three arches with a more monumental header, and the title of King’s Ent. is altered to ‘PART OF THE KINGS ENTERTAINMENT IN PASSING TO his Coronation’. This is factually incorrect (the coronation took place in 1603) but presumably looked more impressive in the new context.
In other respects, F1 follows Q very closely, making few substantive changes and broadly reproducing Q’s typography. The main exception is at 175-86, where the ‘elogy’, printed in lower-case italics in Q, is set in upper-case roman; this is in keeping with F1’s more monumental appearance, but Q’s lower-case is correct, for it appears that way in William Kip’s engraving of the arch. Strikingly, F1 fails to correct the misreading at Q 112, and many errors in the Latin are allowed to stand, as at 333, 558 and 565. It also carries over a series of errors from variant states of Q: the misidentification of Lactantius in marginal note 38 as ‘Luctatius’; the omission of ‘imag.’ in marginal note 46 ; and in Althorp, ‘Oranas’ for ‘Orianas’ (95) and the erroneous speech heading ‘SATIRE’ for ‘FAERY’ at 88. New errors are introduced at King’s Ent. 247, 637, 643, in marginal note 31, and in the Althorp marginalia; in the Panegyre 59, the metaphorical conceit present in the word ‘concent’ is lost by a change of spelling to ‘consent’. In King’s Ent. marginal note 50, the abbreviation ‘Epi.’ is mistakenly expanded to ‘Epist.’; the correct reference should be to Martial’s Epigrams. A spectacular slip appears on the first recto of Althorp, where the words ‘A SATYRE’ – taken from the opening speech-heading – are printed at the top in large capitals as if they were the title of the entertainment. This wrong-footed many subsequent editors, who have reproduced them as if they were indeed the title. In Gifford’s edition, the entertainment has its own title page as ‘THE SATYR’, and is indexed thus in Gifford-Cunningham. Percy Simpson recognized the mistake, and marked it as an error by placing ‘A SATYRE’ in square brackets – though, remarkably, on his governing principle of fidelity to the folio, he could not bring himself to delete it, and by failing to rectify it, he effectively perpetuated the mistake for unwary readers. There is also an error on the Althorp title page, which leaves Q’s wording unchanged, although it is redundant in F1: ‘Written by the same Author, and not before published’. It is difficult to believe that Jonson would have allowed these errors to stand had he read the proofs. Probably he had little input into the reprint, and the printer was well capable of making all these omissions and changes of format. The unreliability of the printing and proof-reading means that F1’s text has negligible authority. F1 has no stop-press corrections.
Some extracts from King’s Ent. are preserved in a miscellany at Worcester College, Oxford (MS 6, 13, fols. 7-8; JnB 678), amongst short lyrics and devotional writings. They comprise paraphrases and quotations, the most extensive being brief descriptions of Genius, Bouleutes, Polemius, Euphrosyne, Sebasis, Prothymia, Agrypnia, Agape and Omothymia, extracted from 53-163. The scribe also transcribes parts of notes 30 and 31, and lines 245-6, 263, 298-303 and 310-13.
Since Jonson used King’s Ent. marginal notes 34-6 to compliment the mayor and corporation of London, it seems probable that he presented a copy of Q to the city. Interestingly, one of two copies in the Guildhall Library, City of London, has a contemporary inscription on π1v, in faded ink. Unfortunately, this is now impossible to decipher except for fragmentary words, but the appearance of its ink is very similar to that used in presentation copies of other Jonsonian volumes. It is tempting to speculate that this is the copy that Jonson himself presented to the corporation.
Percy Simpson speculated that Jonson was also likely to have given a presentation manuscript of the Panegyre to the King, and drew attention to a single leaf which survives in British Library Royal MS 17 B. XXXI (H&S, 7.69 ). This manuscript is the scribal copy of The Masque of Blackness: the leaf is bound up with the manuscript as if it were the masque’s title-page. It reads:
THE
Teares of the Howers.
IVSTICE. PEACE. & LAWE.
wept
into the bosome of
the best K.
M<u>tare dominum non potest liber notus.
1604.
This inscription is set within double rules similar to those used in the text of Blackness, but the top rule is 2mm lower, and the leaf clearly belongs to a different text. The paper is from the same stock from the rest of the manuscript, and Gabriel Heaton (2003) , 51-2 believes the hand may be the same; however, this is not clearly the case, and the ink is quite different. Simpson proposed that this could have been Jonson’s original title-page for A Panegyre. There are significant difficulties with this suggestion. The heading does not correspond to the poem, in that it is Themis, rather than the Hours, who speaks to James, and the title ‘The Tears of the Hours’ leads one to expect a poem of political complaint. The epigraph – ‘A well-known book cannot change author’ – comes from a Martial epigram (1.66.9) warning readers not to plagiarize from works that are published and attested, and seems to herald a more satirical poem. Nonetheless, Dice, Eunomia, and Irene all do appear in Jonson’s text; Martial was one of his favourite sources of epigraphs (and supplies the epigraph for the Panegyre); the problem of plagiarism was a recurrent preoccupation; and if one understands the ‘tears’ of the Hours as expressions of joy, then this might be an alternative title for the Panegyre. No other poem from the period has been identified as corresponding to what this page seems to promise. Nonetheless, it is not clear why (or when) Jonson should have chosen to give his poem two separate titles, nor why the stray title-page should have been bound up with a scribal manuscript of The Masque of Blackness (suggesting that the manuscript was copied out and presented around Christmas 1604-5). As for the copy from which Q’s text was set, that was probably a holograph, for Q has some of Jonson’s characteristic spellings: ‘windore(s)’ (45, 63), ‘aequall’ (54), ‘praeceding’ (91), and ‘Tyran’ (99).
Outside the collected editions, King’s Ent., the Panegyre and Althorp were reprinted in The Progresses, Processions and Magnificent Festivities of James I, ed. John Nichols (1828) . King’s Ent. was included in Jacobean Civic Pageants, ed. Richard Dutton (Keele University Press, 1996b) . Dutton combines Jonson’s and Dekker’s account of the entry into a single continuous narrative; the present editor is greatly indebted to his translations of the Latin and Greek. The Panegyre appears in The Poetical Works of Ben Jonson, ed. Robert Bell (1856) ; The Poems of Ben Jonson, ed. B. H. Newdigate (1936) ; Poems of Ben Jonson, ed. G. B. Johnston (1954) ; Ben Jonson: The Complete Poems, ed. George Parfitt (1975) ; and in Ben Jonson: Poems, ed. Ian Donaldson (1975) . Donaldson’s text was additionally incorporated into his edition of Jonson for the Oxford Authors series (1985) .
Collation of Q
Thirty-six copies or part-copies of Q survive, of which twenty-three preserve the complete text. Of the rest, three are in private hands and unavailable for collation, four consist only of part 1, three are separate copies of part two, and the rest are in various states of fragmentation. Only the Folger Harmsworth copy has all three blanks (π1, A1, and F2). All copies have been collated for this edition, except copy 33, the readings in which were very kindly checked for me by John Kuhn. Copies 20 and 32 were seen in xerox.
1. The British Library: C.34.b.20 (- π1, A1, F2; D3-4 incorrectly bound after F1)
2. The British Library: C.39.d.1 (- π1, A1; + F2)
3. The British Library: C.122.d.14 (- π1, A1; + F2)
4. The British Library: G 11210 (2A-B only)
5. The British Library: Ashley 955 (-π1, A1, F2)
6. Cambridge University Library: Syn.7.60.16 (fragment, consisting of π2 and F1; π2
damaged, lacks everything below ‘With other additions’)
7. Trinity College Library, Cambridge: VI.8.39 (- π1, A1; + F2)
8. Bodleian Library, Oxford: Gough London 122.2 (- A1, 2A-B; + π1, F2)
9. Bodleian Library, Oxford: Malone 233(6) (2A-B only)
10. Bodleian Library, Oxford: Douce fragm. e.42 (30***) (fragment, π1-2 only)
11. Bodleian Library, Oxford: Gough Northampton 10(1) (fragment, 2A only)
12. Merton College Library, Oxford: 75.f.2 (fragment, C-F2 only)
13. All Souls’ College Library, Oxford: L.R. 4.E.37 (- π1, A1; + F2)
14. Victoria and Albert Museum, London: D26 Box 52.2 (- π1, A1; + F2)
15. The Guildhall Library, London: SR4 (- π1, A1; + F2)
16. The Guildhall Library, London: Safe 2 (- π1, A1, F2; extensive 17C marginalia
on π1v)
17. National Library of Scotland, Edinburgh: RB.s.27 (- π1, 2B4 [supplied in
facsimile]; + A1, F2 [π2 severely cropped])
18. John Rylands Library, Manchester: 20619 (- π1, A1, F2, 2A-B)
19. Lincoln Cathedral Library: Rr.6.11(4-5) (- π1, F2; + A1)
20. Exeter Cathedral Library: fragment (2A1:4 only, cropped)
21. The Folger Library, Washington DC: STC 14756 copy 1 (+ π1, A1, F2)
22. The Folger Library, Washington DC: STC 14756 copy 2 (- π1, A1, F2, 2A-B)
23. The Folger Library, Washington DC: STC 14756 copy 3 (- π1, A1, F2, 2A-B; π2 is composite, the bottom half repaired with a fragment from another copy)
24. The Berg Collection, New York Public Library (parts 1 and 2 separately bound)
25. The Houghton Library, Harvard University: 14427.24.45* (- π1, A1, F2; signature and extensive marginalia by Richard Balam, mathematician, fl. 1653)
26. The Huntington Library, San Marino: 62098 (- A1; + π1, F2)
27. The Huntington Library, San Marino: 62095 (- π1, A1, F2)
28. The Huntington Library, San Marino: 62094 (2A-B only)
29. The Beinecke Library, Yale University: Eliz 107 (- π1, A1; + F2)
30. University of Texas at Austin, Harry Ransom Humanities Research Center: Pforz. 553 (- π1, A1; + F2)
31. University of Texas at Austin, Harry Ransom Humanities Research Center: PR 2624 P377 1604 (- F2, 2A-B)
32. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign: IUA07284 (- π1, A1; + F2)
33. Columbia University Library, New York: DA452 .J65 1604g (- π1, A1, F2) [with Jonson’s name completed in ink on the title-page, in a contemporary hand, thus ‘B.<en> JON:<SON>’]
| A inner | |||
| STATE 1 | STATE 2 | STATE 3 | |
| A2 | |||
| 9-10 | mira constan- / tia | --- | mir constan- / ti |
| 11 | copia | --- | copi |
| 25 | Hyporbole | --- | Hyperbole |
| A3v | |||
| 21 | [Line indented] | --- | [Line flush left] |
| 21-2 | the Ci- / ty; in | --- | the City; / in |
| 22 | skinne | --- | skinne-coate |
| A4 | |||
| 11 | quid | --- | ----quid |
| 25 | *wine | \wine | --- |
| 29 | [line centred] | --- | [line flush left] |
State 1: copy 31
State 2: copies 1, 2, 3, 7, 13, 24, 14, 15, 16, 18, 22, 23, 26, 27, 29, 32
State 3: copies 5, 8, 17, 19, 21, 25, 30, 33
| A outer | |||
| SETTING 1 | SETTING 2 | ||
| STATE 1 | STATE 2 | ||
| A2v | |||
| 1 | fitly | fittely | --- |
| 1-2 | aboue-mentioned Title | of | aboue mentioned | Title of | --- |
| 2 | the Kings Chamber | the Kings Chamber | --- |
| 2-3 | and therefore | heere | and there- | fore heere | --- |
| 3-4 | Empire: | for, | Em- | pire: for, | Em_ / pire: for, |
| 4-5 | Kingdome | Maister | King- | dome M. | --- |
| 11-12 | shields through them: | shieldes thorow them; | --- |
| 15 | Ireland: | Ireland. | --- |
| 19 | inscribed | inscrib’d | --- |
| 26 | *Virg.—Et penitus | And Virg. [centred] | ~ [flush left] |
| —Et penitus [centred] | --- | ||
| 28-32 | The Shields | their precedency and distinctions. At her feete was set | THEOSOPHIA, | or Diuine wisedom, al in white, a blew mantle seeded | with Stars, a crowne of Stars vpon hir head; hir gar | The Shieldes the | precedency of the Countries and their distincti- | ons. At her feete was set | THEOSOPHIA, | --- |
| c.w. | ments | or | --- |
| A3 | |||
| 1-2 | [omitted] | or Diuine wisdome, al in white, a blew mantle seeded | with Stars, a crowne of Stars on her head. Hir gar- | --- |
| 3 | Cleerenesse: | ~. | --- |
| 5 | Doue; . . . Serpent; | ~, . . . ~: | --- |
| note 1 | ranged with line 5 | --- | ranged with line 7 |
| note 2 | ranged with line 7 | --- | ranged with line 9 |
| note 3 | ranged below ‘GENIVS’ | ranged above ‘GENIVS’ | --- |
| note 3 | rerum existi- | marūt | --- | rerū existima- | runt |
| Deum: | et vrbib. quam | --- | Deum: & | tam vrbib. quā | |
| A4v | |||
| note 1 | Egl. | Ecl. | --- |
| note 2 | ranged above ‘QVA’ | ranged with ‘QVA’ | --- |
| note 3 | ranged with ‘Taken’ | ranged below ‘Taken’ | --- |
| 27 | winde, | ~; | --- |
| 29 | Qua | --- | Qu |
| 29 | porta, | ---^ | --- |
Setting 1: copies 13, 15, 16
Setting 2, state 1: copies 1, 2, 3, 7, 14, 18, 22, 23, 24, 26, 27, 29, 31, 32
Setting 2, state 2: copies 5, 8, 17, 19, 21, 25, 30, 33
| B inner | ||
| SETTING 1 | SETTING 2 | |
| B3v | ||
| 9 | heauen | Heauen |
| note a | Portugall, | Portugal, |
| note a | consent of Po / ets | consent of / Poets |
| stil’d au- / rifer. | stil’d / aurifer. | |
| note b | &c ^ | &c. |
| B4 | ||
| note a | chief Serieant | chiefe Serieant |
| note a | [ranged beside 4] | [ranged beside 5] |
| note b | some particu- / lar allusion to / his name, / which is Be- / net, and hath / (no doubt) in / time bin the / contraction / of Benedict. | some particular / allusion to his / Name, which / is Benet, and / hath (no doubt) / in time bin the / contraction of / Benedict. |
| note d | persons | Persons |
| note d | Humanity, & / in | Humanitie, and / in |
| frequent / vse with al | frequent vse / with all | |
| the / Greek | the / Greeke |
SETTING 1: copies 1, 2, 3, 7, 13, 14, 15, 16, 18, 22, 23, 24, 26, 27, 29, 31, 32
SETTING 2: copies 5, 8, 17, 19, 21, 25, 30, 33
| B outer | |||||
| STATE 1 | STATE 2 | STATE 3 | STATE 4 | STATE 5 | |
| B1 | |||||
| 27 | ----Quam | Quàm | --- | --- | --- |
| B2v | |||||
| 8 | Imprese, | Impreses, | --- | --- | --- |
| 21 | gazed, said | it | --- | --- | did gaze, | said it | --- |
| note | ranged with ‘TIme’ | --- | --- | ranged above ‘TIme’ | ranged with ‘TIme’ |
| B3 | |||||
| Note b | ab vrbe | --- | --- | ab vrbo | --- |
| Note d | Cressa . . . nota | --- | --- | Cress . . . not | --- |
| B4v | |||||
| Note a | Lactant. | --- | Luctatius | --- | --- |
| 5 | ^He seekes | “He seekes | --- | --- | --- |
| 6 (note) | To the | --- | *To the | --- | --- |
| 6 | And | --- | *And | --- | --- |
| 16 | With those | With (e) those | --- | --- | --- |
| note e | [omitted] | [added] | --- | --- | --- |
STATE 1: copies 2, 16
STATE 2: copies 1, 13, 15, 18, 26
STATE 3: copies 3, 7, 14, 22, 23, 24, 27, 29, 31, 32
STATE 4: copies 5, 21, 25, 30
STATE 5: copies 8, 17, 19, 33
| C inner | |||
| SETTING 1 | SETTING 2 | ||
| STATE 1 | STATE 2 | ||
| C1v | |||
| 2 | Auncient | Auncients | --- |
| note * | Abb. | --- | Alb. [swash A] |
| note * | in | deorum | imag. | --- | in | deorum |
| note § | lib. | --- | l ib. |
| 3 | yeare ) which | yeare ( which | |
| 4 | seasons: | seasons, | --- |
| 5 | Winter,) | --- | Winter, |
| 7 | Ciccero. | Cic. | --- |
| 7 | vni | vim | --- |
| 9 | voluerunt | voluerunt, | |
| 9 | e’st | est | --- |
| 13 note | Fast | Fast. | --- |
| 13 | Coelum | coelum | --- |
| 13 | Terras | terras | --- |
| 19 | Tot vultus mihi nec | TOT VVLTVS MIHI NEC | --- |
| satis putaui. | SATIS PVTAVI. | ||
| 21 | behold | --- | beholde |
| 24 | Et modo sacrifico | ET MODO SACRIFICO | --- |
| Clusius ore vocor. | CLVSIVS ORE VOCOR. | --- | |
| 24 note | Ouid. lib.8 | Epi. 1. | Ouid. | Fast. 1. | --- |
| 25 | vpon | open | --- |
| 25 | Patulcius | PATVLCIVS | --- |
| 25-6 | vp- | on | vpon | vpō |
| 26 | the Kings Maiestie | his Maiesty | --- |
| 26-7 | be | shut, | be shut, | | --- |
| 27 | Clusius | CLVSIVS | --- |
| 27 | out-most | --- | outmost |
| C2 | |||
| 4-5 | could close that | | should close | that | --- |
| 6 | tantum | tantủm | --- |
| 9 | Virtuta | Virtuti | --- |
| 9 | vni ! | vni | --- |
| 11 | sanguine , | --- | sanguine ^ |
| 14 note | [aligned with 15] | [aligned with 14] | --- |
| 15 | Iur andasq | --- | Iurandasq |
| 19 note | Or Pax. | [omitted] | --- |
| 19 | She | or Peace, she | --- |
| 19-20 | attire White, se- | mined | attire | White, semined | --- |
| 20 | Haire | haire | --- |
| 20-21 | and large: a | | and | large: a | and | large: a |
| 21 | wreathe | wreath | --- |
| 21-2 | shoulder a | siluer | shoul- | der a siluer | --- |
| 22 | foorth | forth | --- |
| C3v | |||
| 2 note | Or Serui- | tus. | [omitted] | --- |
| 2 | A | or Seruitude, a | --- |
| 2-3 | garments, Leane and | | garments, | leane and | --- |
| Meager | meager | --- | |
| 3-4 | feete, and hands, | | feete, | and hands, | --- |
| 4 | necke | neck | --- |
| 4 | Yoke | --- | Yoake |
| 4-5 | seruitude, and | the | bon- | dage, and the | | bondage, and the |
| 8 note | [level with 8] | [above 8] | [level with 8] |
| 8 | [flush with 9] | --- | [moved right] |
| 8-9 | [one line] | [two lines] | --- |
| 9 | quam | Quam | --- |
| 12 | handmaid | --- | hand-maid |
| 12 | was. | --- | was |
| 14 note | Or Salus. | [omitted] | --- |
| 14 | A | or Safety, a | --- |
| 14-15 | Coulour signifying | | colour signi- | fying | --- |
| Cheare | cheare | --- | |
| 15 | life | Life | --- |
| 15 | sate | sat | --- |
| 15 | vpon | Vpon | --- |
| 15-16 | head shee | | head | she | --- |
| 16 | helme | Helme | --- |
| 17 | speare | Speare | --- |
| 17 | defence: | defence; | --- |
| 17 | cupp | Cup | --- |
| 17 | Medicine : | ~: | ~: |
| 19 | hie | did lie | --- |
| 19 | was. | was | --- |
| 21 note | Or Peri- | culum. | [omitted] | --- |
| 21 | A | or Daunger, a | --- |
| 21-2 | naked, the little | | naked, | the little | --- |
| 22 | Coulours, | cou- | --- |
| c.w. | to | lours, | --- |
| C4 | |||
| 1 | to | lours, to | --- |
| 1-2 | her lies a | | ~ ~ | ~ | ~ | ~ ~ |
| 2 | and a | --- | & a |
| 2-3 | instruments of | her | --- | ~ | ~ ~ |
| 3 | furie, … skin) the | ~) … ~ (~ | --- |
| 3-4 | ensignes | of | --- | en- | signes of |
| 4 | malice | ~) | --- |
| 6 note | [below 6] | [flush with 6] | --- |
| 7 | safetie | Safetie | --- |
| 8 | security | Security | --- |
| 8 | daunger | Daunger | Danger |
| 12 | Varied | or Felicity, varied | --- |
| 12-13 | apparrelled richly, | | apparel- |led richly, | apparel- | led richly; |
| 13-14 | a faire gold- | en | a | faire golden | --- |
| 14 | tresse in | tresse. In | --- |
| 14 | hande : | hand | --- |
| 14-15 | the note | of | ~ | ~ ~ | --- |
| 15 | wisdome: | --- | wisdome: |
| 15 | left | ~, | --- |
| 15-16 | Coruncopia fill’d | | Coruncopia | fill’d | Cornucopia | fill’d |
| 16-17 | blessednes; | | bles- | ednes; | bles- | sednes; |
| 17-18 | same at her | feete. | same. | At her feete. | --- |
| 19 | DISPRAGIA. | DYSPRAGIA. | --- |
| 20 | A woman | or Vnhappines, a womā | --- |
| 20-21 | armes, brest, and | | ~, | ~, ~ | --- |
| 21-22 | pale; she holds a | | ~; | ~ ~ ~ | --- |
| 22-23 | all the flowers | | ~ | ~ ~ | --- |
| 23 | a Rauen as the | a | --- |
| c.w. | Augury | Rauen | --- |
SETTING 1: copy 32
SETTING 2, STATE 1: copies 1, 2, 3, 7, 13, 14, 15, 16, 18, 22, 23, 24, 26, 27, 29, 31
SETTING 2, STATE 2: copies 5, 8, 12, 17, 19, 21, 25, 30, 33
Note: there is also some type movement in the first state of Setting 2, as the stop after ‘Temple’ on C2 5 moves rightwards in copies 13, 14, 16 and 26.
| C outer | |||
| STATE 1 | STATE 2 | STATE 3 | |
| C1 | |||
| 21 | vocabant; | --- | ~ ^ |
| note 1 | cro: | --- | ~. |
| C2v | |||
| note 1 | him^ | --- | ~. |
| 11 | IN NVMERIS | --- | INNVMERIS |
| note 2 | ranged with 12 | --- | ranged below 13 |
| 16 | Tryumphes | --- | Triumphes |
| 20 | handmaid | --- | handmaide |
| C3 | |||
| 2 | Rest; | --- | ~: |
| 6 | garment | --- | garmēt |
| 12 | mandataq | --- | mandataq |
| 13 | Imperiosa | --- | Imperioso |
| 23 | power : | --- | power: |
| 24 | creatrue | --- | creature |
| C4v | |||
| 1 | Augury | Rauen, as the Augury | --- |
| note 2 | ranged with line 11 | --- | ranged between lines 11 and 12 |
| 12 | POSSIMVS | --- | POSCIMVS |
| note * | ranged with ‘at the’ | --- | reset and ranged below the line |
STATE 1: copy 32
STATE 2: copies 1, 2, 3, 7, 13, 14, 15, 16, 18, 22, 23, 24, 26, 27, 29, 31
STATE 3: copies 5, 8, 12, 17, 19, 21, 25, 30, 33
| D inner | ||||||
| STATE 1 | STATE 2 | STATE 3 | STATE 4 | STATE 5 | STATE 6 | |
| D1v | ||||||
| 1 | Calender | --- | --- | Kalender | --- | --- |
| 3 | feast; | --- | --- | ~^ | --- | --- |
| 4 | PERENVA | --- | --- | PERENNA | --- | --- |
| 4 | guest; | --- | --- | --- | ~^ | --- |
| 14 | Altar ^ | ^, | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 15 | Stooper | Stoope | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 21 | place | --- | --- | Place | --- | --- |
| 22 | excites, | --- | --- | ~^ | --- | --- |
| note c | penurie, | --- | --- | ~: | --- | --- |
| Annere | --- | --- | Annare | --- | --- | |
| c.w. | Whose | --- | --- | Who | --- | --- |
| D2 | ||||||
| 4 | His and | --- | --- | His, l and | --- | --- |
| 5 | ought: | --- | --- | ~^ | --- | --- |
| 22 | FLAMIN | --- | --- | ~, | --- | --- |
| 23 | sence | --- | --- | cenſe | --- | --- |
| 27 | the | --- | --- | thy | --- | --- |
| note l | safe- | --- | --- | Safe- | --- | --- |
| note m | pependi | --- | --- | pependit | --- | --- |
| c.w. | That | --- | My | ~ | --- | --- |
| D4 | ||||||
| 1 | initial T | --- | --- | --- | T | T |
| upright | inverted |
STATE 1: copy 24
STATE 2: copy 18
STATE 3: copy 26
STATE 4: copies 1, 2, 7, 13, 14, 15, 16, 22, 23
STATE 5: 12, 21
STATE 6: 3, 5, 8, 17, 19, 25, 27, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33
[Note: there is type movement in copies 3 and 29, which both read ‘gue ^ st ^’ at line 4 of D1v.]
| D outer | |||
| STATE 1 | STATE 2 | STATE 3 | |
| D1 | |||
| note d | Flamines dicti | --- | Filamines dicti |
| note e | Whichin | --- | Which in |
| note f | Pone | --- | Ponè |
| pone | --- | ponè | |
| D3 | |||
| 22 | ARDENTISSIMI . | ARDENTISSIMIS. | --- |
STATE 1: copy 26
STATE 2: copies 1, 2, 3, 7, 13, 14, 15, 16, 18, 22, 23, 24, 27, 29, 31, 32
STATE 3: copies 5, 8, 12, 17, 19, 21, 25, 30, 33
| E inner | ||
| STATE 1 | STATE 2 | |
| E1v | ||
| 8 | sing | ^, |
| 9 | first | ^, |
| E3v | ||
| 3 | spight | Spight |
| 17 | runnes | runne |
| 28 | and in it aequal shone | ~, ~ ~, ~ ~, |
| E4 | ||
| 4 | Sexe | ~, |
| 6 | Aire | aire |
STATE 1: copies 2, 16
STATE 2: copies 1, 3, 5, 7, 8, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, 19, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33
| E outer | ||
| STATE 1 | STATE 2 | |
| E3 | ||
| 19 | vapo r | vapor |
| E4v | ||
| 28 | flush with 27 | moved left |
STATE 1: copies 1, 2, 3, 7, 13, 14, 15, 16, 18, 22, 23, 24, 26, 27, 29, 31, 32
STATE 2: copies 5, 8, 12, 17, 19, 21, 25, 30, 33
F
Invariant
| 2 A inner | ||||
| SETTING 1 | SETTING 2 | |||
| STATE 1 | STATE 2 | STATE 3 | ||
| 2A2 | ||||
| [headline] | numbered ‘1’ | unnumbered | --- | numbered ‘1’ |
| 7-8 | wood, wondering | wood, wondring | Wood, wondring | --- |
| 13 | eare. | --- | ~: | --- |
| 16 | Tree,) | --- | ~.) | --- |
| 17 | be | --- | bee | --- |
| 19 | abroade | --- | abroad | --- |
| 26 | wood | Wood | --- | --- |
| 26 | againe, and | ~^ , ~ | --- | --- |
| sig. | A2 (under ‘wood’) | A 2 (under ‘againe’) | --- | --- |
| 2A3v | ||||
| [headline] | paged ‘4’ | page unnumbered | --- | paged ‘6’ |
| note | * For | *For | --- | * For |
| note | [ranged above ‘Yester’] | --- | --- | [with ‘Yester’] |
| 6 | Ban puet: | Banquet; | --- | --- |
| 9 | her: | ~; | --- | --- |
| 11 | known | knowne | --- | --- |
| 12 note | following. | folowing, | --- | folowing. |
| 13 | Mistres [not indented] | [indented] | --- | --- |
| 13 | spight: | spight; | --- | --- |
| 14-15 | [ranged evenly] | [ranged slightly left] | --- | --- |
| 14 | yester-night | yesternight | --- | --- |
| 16 | And [italic A] | ~ [swash A] | --- | --- |
| 24 | hold, Mab [swash M] | hold , Mab [italic M] | --- | --- |
| 26 | awaye | away | --- | --- |
| 2A4 | ||||
| [headline] | paged ‘5’ | page unnumbered | --- | paged ‘5’ |
| 1 | SATIRE. | FAERY. | --- | --- |
| 3 | wtih | with | --- | --- |
| 4 | plaine: | ~: | --- | --- |
| 7 | play, | ~^, | --- | --- |
| 7 | sing, | ~. | --- | --- |
| 8 | euery thing | euerything | --- | --- |
| 8 note | [below 8] | [just below 8] | --- | [below 7] |
| 9 | Oranas | Orianas | --- | --- |
| 10 | SONG [closed up] | SONG [spaced] | --- | --- |
| 10-12 | [ranged left] | [centred] | --- | --- |
| 12 | shee | she | --- | --- |
| 14 note | [with 14] | [just below 16] | --- | --- |
| 19-20 | [ranged right of ‘Doth’] | [ranged under ‘Doth’] | --- | --- |
| 20 | lea∫t | least | --- | --- |
| 21n | Kingdoms | ~. | --- | --- |
| 23 | FAEKY. | FAERY. | --- | --- |
| sig. | [under ‘guift’] | [under ‘to’] | --- | --- |
SETTING 1: copies 2, 5, 14, 17, 19, 20, 21, 25, 28, 30, 33
SETTING 2, state 1: copy 29
SETTING 2, state 2: copies 3, 4, 13, 16, 27, 32
SETTING 2, state 3: copies 1, 8, 9, 15, 24, 26
| 2 A outer | ||||
| STATE 1 | STATE 2 | STATE 3 | STATE 4 | |
| 2A1 | ||||
| ornament b | [slightly right] | --- | [centred] | --- |
| 2A3 | ||||
| 7 | please | --- | pelase | please |
| 2A4v | ||||
| [page no.] | [above ‘Fairies’] | --- | [above ‘Fairies’] | --- |
| 13 note | [ranged above 13] | --- | [ranged below 13] | --- |
| 14 note | giueu | --- | giuen | --- |
| c.w. | Heere | Here | --- | --- |
state 1: copy 20
state 2: copies 2, 3, 4, 5, 13, 14, 16, 17, 19, 21, 25, 27, 28, 29, 30, 32, 33
state 3: copy 26
state 4: copies 1, 9, 11, 15, 24
| 2 B inner | |||
| SETTING 1 | SETTING 2 | ||
| STATE 1 | STATE 2 | ||
| 2B1v | |||
| 2 | flatter; | --- | ~: |
| 11 | King; | --- | ~: |
| 16 | neglected: | --- | ~: |
| 20 note | [ranged below 20] | --- | [ranged above 20] |
| 28 | boldnesse; | --- | ~, |
| 28 note | Huntsmā. | --- | Huntsman. |
| 2B2 | |||
| [page no.] | [above ‘shamfastnesse’] | --- | [above ‘shamfastnesse’] |
| 2B3v | |||
| 7-8 | was pre- | sented to | --- | was to | haue been |
| haue beene | --- | presented | |
| 2B4 | |||
| [page no.] | [above ‘hath’] | [above ‘hath’] | |
| 10 | entertainement | --- | Entertainement |
| 11 | reality | ~, | --- |
SETTING 1: copies 3, 16
SETTING 2, State 1: copies 27, 29, 32
SETTING 2, State 2: copies 1, 2, 4, 5, 9, 13, 14, 15, 17, 19, 21, 24, 25, 26, 28, 31, 33
2 B outer
SETTING 1 SETTING 2
| 2 B outer | |||
| SETTING 1 | SETTING 2 | ||
| STATE 1 | STATE 2 | ||
| 2B1 | |||
| 2 | Satire | Satyre | --- |
| 2-3 | himselfe a- | gaine | himselfe | againe | --- |
| 4 | SATIRE | SATYRE | --- |
| 9 | Say that | --- | ~, ~ |
| 9 | here hee | heere he | --- |
| 12 | sauadge? | ~? | --- |
| 12 | esteemed. | ~, | --- |
| 13 | Entertayner | Entertainer | --- |
| 15 | fauors | sauors | --- |
| 16 | sauors. | ~^ | --- |
| 18 | Courtiery, | ~; | --- |
| 19 | kisses. | ~, | --- |
| 20 | oth | oath | --- |
| 23 | preserue | preferre | --- |
| 2B2v | |||
| 2 | rested; | ~, | --- |
| 5 | themselues; | ~, | --- |
| 6 | speach | Speaker | --- |
| 7 | heard | hard | --- |
| 8 | speach, | speacb | --- |
| 12 | Ioue; | ~, | --- |
| 15 | And, | (And, | --- |
| 16 | in. | in) | --- |
| 17 | all, | ~^ | --- |
| 20 | wherof | whereof | --- |
| 25 | things | Things | --- |
| 25 | suspicion: | ~^ | --- |
| 2B3 | |||
| 6 | Holmby: | ~: | --- |
| 25 | woman | womam | --- |
SETTING 1: copies 3, 16, 27, 29, 32
SETTING 2, State 1: copies 1, 4, 9, 13, 15, 24, 26, 30
SETTING 2, State 2: copies 2, 5, 14, 17, 19, 21, 25, 28, 33