University of Virginia Library

An Initiation Into Initials
by
Franklin B. Williams, Jr.

THE THESIS OF THIS STUDY IS THAT MANY MINOR discoveries await the literary detective prepared to apply ingenuity to the hundreds of initials that appear in British Renaissance books. The body of the study consists of a survey of problems, with numerous examples. Younger scholars may profit from the instruction; old hands will at least be grateful for the illustrations. Lest it be suspected that "M, O, A, I, doth sway my life," I hasten to give assurance that no time will be wasted rehearsing disputes over such cruxes as Mr. W. H. of Shakespeare's Sonnets and E. K. of

documentation and the source of the solutions cited. All examples of initials are from British books published before 1641; these are cited by date and by serial number in the standard bibliography, A. W. Pollard and Redgrave's Short-Title Catalogue, 1475-1640 (London, 1926). I have endeavored to give credit for all solutions that I have borrowed. Solutions for which no authority is cited may be considered to be either in the common domain or now independently advanced by the writer. Of course it is possible that some of mine may have been noted earlier by others.

Before entering on an exploration of the field, the reader may appreciate, as an interest arouser, sample solutions to illustrate the use of external and internal evidence. A pretty Spenser problem shows that opportunity remains for discovery. Over the past century authorities have been content to observe that one of Edmund Spenser's last published poems was his set of commendatory verses before The Historie of George Castriot (1596-15318), translated by Z. I. One might suppose that such an unusual signature would have spurred search, although I confess that I have met another Z[acharias] I[enkinson], a Rutlandshire preacher (1620-11838). The Castriot translation, however, is explicitly claimed by Zachary Jones in the epistle to the reader before

his translation of A Treatise of Specters (1605-15448). Accordingly we may add to the circle of Spenser's friends a Lincoln's Inn barrister who had been a younger contemporary of the poet at Cambridge. Detection of this link has perhaps been delayed by the fact that STC misprints the name of the translator of the Treatise as L. Jones. This is a neat example of the danger of manuscript copy, for the error occurred in setting from manuscript slips prepared from the British Museum catalogue of English books before 1641, where the name is correctly printed as Z. Jones.

As an example of internal evidence, we may consider Henry Perry's Eglvryn Phraethineb (1595-19775), with commendatory Latin verses by "I. H. Novi Coll. & nov. Temp. Socius." The only contemporary I. H. who could claim to be both a fellow of New College, Oxford, and a member of the Middle Temple was the noted wit John Hoskins. The aura of the signature confirms the identification, for Hoskins had many Welsh connections and his wit shows in the rather obscure designation for the Middle Temple in order to balance with "Novi Coll." Thus a poem is added to the Hoskins canon.

The precision of these proofs suggests a warning. Nothing is more futile than irresponsible conjecture. Almost as bad is premature satisfaction when one has hit on a likely fellow whose name fits. Much print has been wasted listing possible candidates. Cautionary examples are in order. Even so reliable a scholar as Edward F. Rimbault, in editing Overbury, suggested that the E. G. with verses before A Wife (1616-18910) was Edmund Gayton, who was in fact about eight years old at the time. In his abridgment of Sylvester's DuBartas,[1] Theron W. Haight felt obliged to advance plausible candidates for most of the commendatory verse writers. An unrecorded 1598 installment of Sylvester's translation has recently come to light at the Folger Library. This reveals the actual writers in three instances. Haight had conjectured that the R. H. (1605-21649) was Robert Hasill, a sufficiently obscure versifier. He now proves to be rather a complete nonentity, R: Hyther. Haight prudently made no guesses for the other two: G[eorge] B[urgh] Cantabridg. and Si[mon] Ca[rril] Gen.

Imaginary and Null Initials

The probability that beginning students will make mistakes is no reason for not warning against certain mirage initials. Horrible examples may be cited, but charity forbids. Students unfamiliar with Renaissance conventions of Latin composition have mistaken abbreviated

formulas for personal initials, especially in such common phrases as S[alutem] P[lurimam] or D[o] D[ico], that is, "dedicates." Students must be alert to such series and have a glossary of abbreviations at hand if they are to cope with a run like that with which "R[ichard] M[ontagu] . . . L.M.M.M.D.D.C.Q." to the memory of James I (1635-18033). Brief, meaningless syllables serving as printers' catchwords have been mistaken for initials. As if in compensation, catchwords in rare instances may reveal what an editor thought he had suppressed in proof:  

1566

22222

W. R.

Catchword: William

Having made sure that the initials truly are initials, a beginner must read them correctly. Renaissance type contains a few pitfalls. A common form of swash italic J has on occasion been misread as F or T. In some Greek fonts II may be mistaken for Γ, as in the signature Aλ.IIρ. before Heywood's Apology for Actors (1612-13309). Printers are sometimes eccentric, as in setting Diag. Vuh. for Degory Wheare. When latinized, a few Christian names shift initial, chiefly those in W like G[ulielmus].

Arbitrary initials of the John Doe variety must next be detected and discounted. These are usually A. B. or some variant of N. N[ame or Nomen]. The initials A. B. are always suspect and likewise C. D. when used in conjunction with them. There is no need to repeat the evidence collected years ago by Fredson Bowers,[2] nor to concede that some examples are genuine. The following may be ruled fictitious with some confidence:

                     

1623	18305	A. B.	Author of a dangerous book
1626	10734	A. B.	"Editor"
1610	3271	A. B.	Mask of recusant
1597	17323	A. B.	Friend of stationer
1640	23307	A. B.	Clergyman editor
1606	24567	Cousins A. B. C. D.
1605	3524	Friend N.
1592	19885	N., Secretary to L. Treasurer
1597	1311	N. N., Baccha.Di.Coll.S.Ioan.	No such man
1584	24050	Q. Z. of Lions Inne
1633	14444	X. Z.	"William Watts" in second issue

The classic example is the A. B. epistle before Savile's Tacitus (1591-23642), attributed to the Earl of Essex on the authority of contemporary allusions (as in 1595-11276) and of Ben Jonson's later remark to Drummond.[3] However, the signature T. N. to an epistle by Henry Chettle (1592-17206) resulted from the misapprehension that Thomas Nash had written it.[4] This is the logical place to mention another suspicious phenomenon. In some books there are disingenuous juxtapositions; a translation by Rowland Willet contains verses by W. R., I. H., and H. I. (1617-21510).

Variant Versions

The next step is to examine other copies of the book to ascertain whether a fuller form of the name occurs in press variants, variant issues or special copies. As the following instances demonstrate, this appears oftener than might be suspected:

                 

1640	3818	R. C.	Rob. Chamberlain
1620	26041	T.D.	Thomas Dewe
1618	13581	Hen: Far:	Hen: Farley
1640	18948	V. H.	Villiers Harrington
1621	3571	Sir T. H.	Sir Thomas Huet	Pforzheimer
1638	22435	I. K.	Io. Kirke
1623	6015	Ladie P.	Ladie Porditch	Folger
1613	18525	[anon]	T. W.	Harvard
1621	3571	Lady P. W.	Lady Philadelpha Wharton	Pforzheimer

In other instances a fuller form is found in later editions:            

1640	10779	Edm. C.	Edm. Calamy
1604	6968	E. C.	Ed. Ch.	?Chetwynd?
1638	4127	W. Gr.	W. Greenhill
1632	12967	St. Hu.	Steph. Hurius, Art. Mag.
1557	24168	Elisabeth P.	Elisabeth Palmel, widow V. M.
1578	1852	R. W.	Richard Wroth

Unhappily this procedure is a two-edged weapon, for instead of the desired completion to the initials, a different copy or edition may reveal a conflicting version. Some are recognizable as corruptions incident to Renaissance reprints:

     

[1620]	15688	A. R.	In earlier editions: R. A[llot]
1604	13980	T. W.	In earlier editions: W. H[unnis]
1628	5670	C. E.	Other issues, E. C[ooke]

When the alteration occurs within the sheets of a single edition, the authentic form can be determined, if at all, only by external evidence or by bibliographical methods beyond the scope of this study:        

1616	18909	G. B. de med. Tem. (Folger)	B.G. medij Temp.
				(normal and later editions)
1585	19447	M. A.	A. M.	Variant issues; supposedly Munday
1603	17151	T. M.	C. S.	Latter presumably a correction

When an alteration is made in a later edition one hopes —and sometimes can prove— that the change is a deliberate correction. Since writers on Sir John Harington seem to have overlooked it, this example may be instanced. Epistle v.9 in the third volume of Joseph Hall's Epistles (1611-12662) is addressed to S. H. I., although the context suggests that the form should be S. I. H[arington]. In fact, Harington's name is substituted in the next printing (1614-12706). But usually when a change is made in a later edition, one must weigh distasteful alternatives: an authorized correction or a reprint corruption?            

1602	1666	A. F.	J. F.	in STC 1665
1619	1547	H. P.	P. H.	in later editions
1613	6611	B. R.	R. R.	in later editions
1618	12747	P. T.	P. S.	in later editions
1584	21483	D. S.	R. C.	unrecorded issue at Lambeth
1608	19057	B. P.	W. P.	in STC 19081 (a reprint)

Furthermore, some of the reversed initials discussed later may in fact be simple typographical errors.

From time to time one encounters initials that have been completed, altered or cancelled in manuscript —a sight likely to impress beginners. Examples may be cited of all degrees of authenticity or dubiety. Since each instance must be judged individually with a discipline involving paleography, I am reluctantly obliged to bypass this interesting field.

Integrated Affixes

In view of the rarity of more than one Christian name among Renaissance Englishmen, it may be assumed that any signature involving more than two letters is either a misprint—

 

1603

18511

I.O:St.G.

For: Io[hn] St. G[eorge]

See STC 12500

or a foreign name—    

1579	18157	R. L. M.	Robert Le Maçon	Solutions by Fernand
1579	18157	M. L. S.	Marin Le Saux	de Schickler

or incorporates some type of affix. Since the LL. of Welsh surnames is a single unit, the principle is not violated by signatures like "T.LL. artium Magister" (1636-21620).

Unhappily, even a two-unit signature may incorporate an affix, although one hopes that this happens seldom:

   

1599	14335	D. B.	D[r. Richard] B[ancroft]	See STC 14658
1636	23992	M. C.	M[aster Thomas] C[arre]

This way madness lies, as is evident in the formula "doctissimo viro D.J.S.P.D." (1636-1576), where there is only one operative letter: "Domino J., Salutem Plurimam Dicit." Related are signatures reflecting the formal style of lords spiritual and temporal or an editor's informal substitute:          

1635	12613	J. E.	J[oseph Hall, Bishop of] E[xeter]
1564	14591	M. C.	M[atthew Parker, Archbishop of] C[anterbury]
1603	14350	I. R.	I[ames] R[ex]
1593	21516	E. O.	E[dward Vere, Earl of] O[xford]
1576	7516	L. V.	[Thomas] L[ord] V[aux]

While frequent in occurrence, the standard prefixes are comparatively few in number, such as Master, Doctor and Sir. The combination Master Doctor occurs.

             

[1627]	13926	C. H. G.	Captain Henry Gage	DNB
1586	25438	D. T. C. M.	D[octor] T. C., M[edicus]
1622	1839	L. M. M.	Lady M. M.
1584	14373	M. W. F.	Master William Fowler
1608	19067	M. H. C. Esquire
1609	7325	S. F. S.	Sir Francis Stafford
1608	19171	M. D. A.	Henry Airay (my conjecture from context)

The commendable custom of using standard abbreviations such as Kt. protects us from a flood of suffixes. The commoner types illustrated below will suggest other possibilities. Some can be solved only with luck. A two-letter suffix with F[ilius] would reflect the Continental practice of appending the father's Christian name.

           

[1631]	18066	M. C. M. E	Master Cresacre More, Esquire[5]
1581	18534	H. G. G.	Humphrey Gifford, Gent.
1595	23076	G. W. I[unior]	Probably Whitney (Variorum Spenser)
1614	11728	I. W. P.	John Wilson, Priest
1619	4489	I. G. P.	John Gostlin, Procancellarius
1619	17245	C. R. R[egin.]	Queen's College, Oxford

Limiting Appendages

More easily recognized and in general helpful for their valuable clues are the standard appendages to initial signatures. First come the designations of the universities, in such form as Oxon. or Cantab., and of the Inns of Court. Next come the standard degrees and related sigla, such as M.A., S.T.B., M.D., LL.B., L[icentiate], and for lawyers, I[uris] C[onsultus]. Since it does not necessarily imply a university connection, the term Theologus is troublesome. Mathematicians and almanackmakers using the term Philomath often had no academic training.

               

1623	22091	L. B. S. T. L.
1640	6190	T. T. Phil. Cand.
1633	13988	I. C. philomath.
1613	20505	I. W. Theol.
1636	21620	D. LL. Dr. I. C.
1628	11992	C. L. I. C. Midd. Temp.
1606	6014	T. C. I. C. Cantabr. Eborac[ensis]
1606	6014	C. T. I. C. F. A.	What is F. A.?

Next come the designations of the various colleges and a few schools. The easiest place to find these in profusion is in university collections of complimentary verses, but here are some others:            

1596	4758	M. G. M. D. Ioannensis	Matthew Gwinne
1634	10935	H. B. ex A[lban] A[ula], A. M.	Henry Beesley
1600	23474	R. K., L[incoln] Col.	Richard Kilbye
1628	25327	S. B., Th.B., Sch. M[agdal.] Rectori	Samuel Bernard
1619	1646	J. E., Free-Schoole, Cranbrook	Untraced
[1592]	25695	M. G. T. Scholae Radclivensis Rectori	Untraced

Misprints may occur here as well as everywhere else:  

1632

20692

Rich. Benefield, T. C.

In this context T. C. means Trinity College, but Benefield is unrecorded at Cambridge. He was a member of Gray's Inn, and we amend to "I. C."

There follow a variety of designations, some common like V.M. or V[erbi] M[inister] D[ei], others rare, like P[raeli] C[orrector], found only in Cambridge books. Place names may be grouped here. If one encounters "H. B. Calesian," one is dealing with Henry Bennett.

     

1620	13582	S. R. V. M. Eccl:Belg:Lond:	Symeon Ruytinck
1625	4477	R. W. Regal. P. C.	Ralph Winterton
[1623]	7376	M. D. V. N[obilis] G[enoa?]

One of the most notorious of these signatures deserves notice, if only because I believe it has been consistently misinterpreted. Thomas

James, first Bodleian librarian, was accustomed to append B. P. N. to his signature, as in the imposing formula: T. I. S. T. P[rof.] B. P. N. (1625?-14455). A reputable but reprehensible tradition foists on James the vanity of pretending that he was B[ono] P[ublico] N[atus].[6] From evidence in another of his books (1627-14457), I prefer to think that he was more modestly claiming to be B[odleianus] P[rotobibliothecarius] N[uperrime].

One class of appendage deserves more attention than it has received, the Latin motto. A motto may reveal identity in two ways. In rare instances it is a deliberate anagram of the author's name:

     

1614	18611	R. N. Non luco, subter Rosis. Robertus Nicolsonus[7]
1597	7193	E. Sc. Duris decus omen. Edmundus Scory
		Hebel's Drayton

In other instances it may be a habitual and recognizable motto, such as George Gascoigne's Tam Marti quam Mercurio, which underlies a remarkable solution by Charles T. Prouty:[8]    

[1575]	24328	T. M. Q.	T[am] M[arti] Q[uam Mercurio, i.e.,
			Gascoigne]

The following examples are offered for solution:          

1591	21057	J. D. Tam Arte, quam Marte
1586	10824	W. L. Spes & Fortuna valete	Inner Temple
1579	24062	Coelum, non Solum, W. M.
1578	6984	T. N. Petit ardua virtus	Thomas Newton?
1605	21649	R. R. Malum patienti lucrum

One may venture the precarious generalization that a long string of letters offers more clues. Monstrous series are commoner on the Continent, whence comes the alchemist Michael Maier's signature (1616-667): M.M.C.P.M.D.E.E.P.C. From evidence elsewhere in the volume this may be solved as: Comes Palatinus, Medicinae Doctor, Eques Exemptus — you finish it! Even here there are problems:

         

1611	3369	L. A. B. V. M.	Lord Anthony Browne, Viscount Montagu
1630	6385	F. L. D. S. M.	Father Leander de Saint Martin
1573	19060	Rogatu honoratiss.viri D. H. S. W. P.
1640	7240	Lady, G. O. C. K.	No English earldom to fit
1605	24714	R. Y. S. M. L. A. D.	Recusant mask

This last pseudonym of the translator of a Catholic book is a mystification suggesting something in the order of Lady Mary S. But the dedication to the translator's mother does not imply a feminine translator, and the mystification may merely mean a spiritual son of the Blessed Virgin, although the mother addressed in the dedication is the human mother. Such a series may be compound. The signature G. B. T. H. P. to a Latin epitaph on the author (1567-4009) probably implies verses in memory of G[ulielmus] B[uckley] by one T.H., who according to the evidence in a later edition (1574-22252) edited the book.

S[tandard] O[perating] P[rocedure]

Having mastered the habit of scrutinizing initials, one may now come to grips with cases. For any preliminary epistle or verses, the first step is to check whether it bears the initials of printer or bookseller. Richard Jones and many others were in the habit of providing initialed forewords. Usually a glance at the imprint will suffice, although it may be necessary to consult the Stationers' Register. Thus judging from STC, one must consult the Register to identify T[homas] W[oodcock] (1583-4442), but in fact an unrecorded issue survives with Woodcock in the imprint (copies at Folger and Harvard). One must remember that the designation "Printer" was used loosely by editors and others. Even when the term has a more exact significance, it may be necessary to search beyond imprint and copyright entry to more elusive data, such as external knowledge of business partnership:

   

1596	20366a	H. C. Printer	Henry Chettle
[1573]	4712	J. S.	John Stroud[9]

One marvels at both the courage and rashness of Stroud in signing his foreword. One suspects that his initials conclude the formula J. T. J. S. in a related book ([1572]-10850).

The next step is to watch for evidence within the volume itself. Hints may appear in many forms and places. I am unfamiliar with the proof that I[ohn] M[elton] wrote A Six-folde Politician (1609-17805), but one is set on the right track by the preliminary verses of I. S., which begin, "Thy tun. . . of wit & hony"—that is, mel-tun. Reference in the text to "Barnhere" nails down the preacher T[homas] B[ernhere] (1606-10668). Such evidence may amount only to strong probability.

         

1575	12188	G. C.	Later verses by G[ul.] Camden
1615	14665	F. A.	Later verses to Francis Appleby
1614	23779	Sa:Cal.	Later verses to Samuel Calvert
1613	25891	Th. C.	Later verses to Thomas Cranly
1620	16684	G. F.	Earlier verses to George Franklyn

Mention of specific kinship may enable one to identify a dedicatee or, conversely, an author:      

1613	23067	Uncle, Fr. Sa.	Francis Sanders	DNB
1623	143	A[rchibald] S[imson]	Mentions uncle, identifiable as Patrick Simson
1626	18156	A[nthony] R[atcliffe]	Names his sisters.[10]

External evidence is almost infinite in variety —as manuscripts, contemporary allusions, clues in other books, and knowledge of friendships. The verses before Samuel Ward's pamphlet on the Synod of Dort (1626-25026) are by Tho[mas] Go[ad] because the two were colleagues at Dort. Internal evidence in Harington's Ajax books equates E. S. Esquier (1596-12772) with Philostilpnos, while what appears to be Harington's holograph note in a Folger copy identifies Philostilpnos as Edward Sheldon. The following solutions by other scholars indicate varieties of evidence:

         

1616	18909	W[illiam] B[rowne]	Browne MS. in British Museum
1607	14783	I[ohn] D[onne]	Reprinted in 1650 Poems
1629	1694	Ph[ilip] Kin[der]	Mark Eccles, HLQ, V (1942), 299.
1635	2418	E[dward] M[illar]	Millar Patrick
1593	22540	H[ugh] S[anford]	Frances Yates, Florio

The following solutions are now newly advanced:                

1635	12141	E[dward] A[lliston]	Association in 1640-18948
1633	12716	I[ames] A[rthur]	Echo in 1637-15717
1618	1635	E[zechiel] C[harke]	Charke edited other Baynes works
1598	12322	H. C[rooke]	Clue in 1601-12315
[1575]	6701	I[ohn] F[ield]	See dedication to 1583-15068
1597	19489	T[homas] M[annering]	Burnt at stake same year
1618	21221	S[tephen] E[gerton]	Blackfriars parish links
1614	841	Hen[ry] Gr[imston],	Grayanus By elimination

In solutions of this class, drudgery is a good companion, but it is nice to have serendipity as an occasional Corinthian.

Calculus of Probabilities

Now and then there is a signature that, to one working in the period, has the stamp of inevitability either from the rarity of the combination or the familiarity of the attributes:

       

1623	23352	W. Q.	Walter Quin
1632	24809	W. Sq.	William Squire
1601	19343	I. D. of Hereford	John Davies
1620	24017	Ph. H., Coventry	Philemon Holland

In practice the solution of initials more often involves an appraisal of from two to twenty rival candidates in the light of probabilities and detectable links. The results range from certainty to complete frustration. Thus we can confidently identify the "worthy Prelate, Doctor N[icholas] F[elton]" (1618-3950), since he was the only contemporary bishop with the initials. But when we turn to the Countess of D., patroness of an unrecorded 1639 work of piety by Thomas Riley in the Folger Library, we find nine possibles and no clear links, although we may intuitively favor that religious Countess of Denbigh who later helped Richard Crashaw.

Illustrations cannot be tabulated, since each requires comment. Thus only Nathaniel Holmes fits the formula "N. H., S. T. D., Oxon." of the editor of a Hebrew grammar (1638-21816), and since he was known as a Hebrew scholar, we confidently add the book to his works. The learned knight K. D. who donated to the Bodleian must be Sir Kenelm Digby (1635-12613). W. R. Mag. Art. C. C. C. (1613-21069) must be Bacon's later editor, William Rawley. A search shows that for the verses before Overbury's Wife (1616-18911) by P. B. medij Temp. we have two candidates, of whom Sir Peter Ball is weak since he was not admitted until February, 1616. Accordingly we settle on Peter Bevis, who has verses before other books in 1612 and 1615, and we attribute to him likewise similar verses to Robert Anton (1616-686). Difficulty may result from misleading clues. M. Ed. F., rector of Kelso, ([1592]-25695) is untraceable in Scotland because he is Edward Franklin of Kelshall, Herts. We sniff a scent when the verses of F. L. in Hawkins' Horace (1625-13800) show the appendage Eq. Aur. in the 1631 edition. But alas, no one of these initials was dubbed between 1625 and 1631, and the elusive versifier must be sought among men knighted before 1623.

Richard Brathwait had a penchant for dedicating to initials; one example may be instructive. A section of his Essaies (1620-3566) is addressed to Sir I. B. de L., J. P., and his eldest son H. B. Since some fifty Englishmen with these initials had been knighted in the previous thirty years, we must shift our approach to Brathwait's lasting loyalty to his home county, Westmoreland. With the search thus narrowed, we soon find Sir James Bellingham of Levens and his son Henry (later I Bart.). Having solved the problem, we wonder why Brathwait scholars did not trouble to. Why? One obvious reason is that such research involves much drudgery. One must seek through lists of knights, registers of universities and inns of court, and heraldic visitations —always with the wry realization that not one of them can be relied on to be complete. Brathwait's countryman S[ir] W. C. kt.

(1621-3571) may be traced by someone willing to work through forty candidates, but as a starter I would suggest the field of six fitting his Sr. G. D. (1621-3589). One constantly meets defeat or —to preserve morale— temporarily shelves a problem. Two instances will suffice. For the Sir I. P. Knight to whom Sir John Hayward addresses a treatise (1606-13001) there are twenty-seven possibilities. There are more than twenty rivals for the Latin verses of H. S. Eques Auratus (1629-21752), though one is predisposed to favor Sir Henry Spelman.

The situation is complicated by instances in which results of a search are negative. Thus no known knight fits the signature Sir E. K. (1591-21057), and presumably he is a fiction. A signature as circumstantial as A. B. Baccha. Di. Auloe [sic] Glo. Oxon. (1597-1311) corresponds to no traceable man, and accordingly one looks with suspicion on the other Oxford signatures puffing this textbook by Peter Bales.

Special Techniques

In the absence of a general catalyst or philosopher's stone to solve initials, techniques may be developed for special cases. One technique involves synthesis from several signatures that can reasonably be attributed to a single individual. As type specimen, we announce discovery of a prolific puff-writer, Christopher Goodfellow, a name certainly appropriate! Commendatory verses for poetry of Humphrey Mill (1640-17921) are supplied before the book by C. G. ex Oxon. and after the book by C. G. Interioris Templi. The only Templar to fit is one Christopher Goodfellow, who is also easily found at Oxford. With this start we may diagnose as Goodfellow's an epidemic of 1640 verses by C. G., often claiming friendship with the author. These include two plays by Richard Brome (3818, 3820), a book by John Tatham (23704), a jest-book (4943), a play by Thomas Rawlins (20770), and a play by Thomas Nabbes (18346), as well as an earlier Nabbes book (1638-18343).

Similarly verses signed G. G. or G. Ga. appear before three fashionable books in 1607 (such as 1607-4508), while verses by an obscure George Gaywood occur close by (1606?-21407). The equation is plausible. Gaywood had written such verses as early as 1598-21661. How far forward or backward may one safely range? Is he the G. G. with verses before Boethius (1609-3202)? Nothing seems to be known about Gaywood beyond Joseph Hunter's unpublished notes showing that he was employed by an Exchequer agent who defalcated in 1609. One suspects that a single individual was responsible for Latin and Greek verses in a Mercator atlas (1635-17824) variously signed R. B. Cantabrigiae, R. B. S. Hosp., and R. B. S. S. M. As a first step in identifying

E. B. (1640-4946) we assume that he is the E. B. with verses before two other plays in the same year (18346 and 20770). R. W. has verses before an overlapping set of three plays. J. L. edits four legal books between 1621 and 1632 (7437), while Ro. Lo. does editorial work on two religious books (12635, 5218). Editorial work on no less than five legal books was done in the 1540's by W. S., perhaps Sir William Stanford.

A second technique involves the detection of recurrent patterns of names. Just as the chemist senses the presence of the familiar benzene ring of six carbon atoms, the literary student observes more fluctuating groups recurring from book to book. If he can identify a member of the group in one book, the identification will serve in others. Here is a type of "guilt by association" that is academically acceptable! Such patterns were the evidence for my identification of a sonnet by M[ichael] D[rayton] (1600-25225).[11] Whenever I have time to perfect this technique, my first project will be in the circle of Sir Thomas Hawkins. A few examples from a single book (1639-12205) will illustrate: I[ohn] H[awkins] D[octor of] M[edicine], S[ir] T[homas] H[awkins], and S[ir] I[ohn] B[eaumont, II] B[art.].

A few nests of initials may be cited for those who desire to experiment. William Goddard dedicates a book to six gentlemen of the Inner Temple ([1599]-11928) —more tricky than it sounds. The ten initialed poems before The Metamorphosis of Tabacco (1602-1695) have been the subject of many conjectures. Someone familiar with Welshmen may tackle the eight in a funeral sermon for an Earl of Essex (1577-6364). Henry Petowe dedicates to six young gentlemen, probably of the London citizenry (1603-19806). Ten Cambridge men commend a book by James Wadsworth (1630-24928); some must be identifiable, such as that gem for the name collector, M[aptid] V[iolet]. And there are always the gentlemen who puffed Overbury's Wife.

Scrambled Initials

We now proceed to an exasperating class—initials that have been deliberately juggled either in a spirit of fun or to achieve concealment. Until an identity has been established on external evidence, such initials supply no ground for solutions. Indeed the chief burden of the scholar in this field is not to obtain solutions to initials but to rationalize the initials to conform to external proof.

The simple reversal of initials is comparatively innocuous. Some instances may be typographical errors; others are deliberate. When one

considers Nicholas Breton's flood of pamphlets, it is not strange that he adopted masks; one example will suffice:              

1614	3664	B. N.	Nicholas Breton
1600	3191	L. N.	Nicholas Ling	A. H. Bullen
1631	1383	H. T.	Thomas Heywood	A. M. Clark
1623	18660	N. S.	Silvester Norris	Misprint in STC
1623	19480	P. D. M.	Mr. Dr. (or Matthew Dr.)	Pattenson
1569	12049	G. B.	Barnaby Googe
1616	18585	N. A.	Anthony Nixon

That the poetaster Thomas Jordan utilized the initials J. B. (1637-14788) to deceive readers into thinking he was being commended by Ben Jonson may be suspected if one approves Percy Simpson's rejection of the piece from the Jonson canon.[12] Traditionally listed among the works of Thomas Scott are two pamphlets signed S. R. N. I. (1624-22092). British Museum cataloguers have now attributed them to another, implying that these are the much-reversed initials of I[oh]N R[eynold]S.

Among more intricate devices is the use of terminal letters to form telonyms,[13] familiar in the instance of Camden:

   

1605	4521	M. N.	[Willia]M [Camde]N
1597	6759	M. N.	[Willia]M [Elderto]N	See STC 6758

This Elderton instance is so incredible that it may well be a practical joke. As John Crow reminds me, Henry Holland enjoyed jokes; among other tricks in one "anonymous" book (1626-5885), he signed the dedication: HalleluiaH. In the following cases authorship appears established, so rationalization is attempted. Sorocold's verses are fully signed in the second edition, while the Jesuit Henry Hawkins' authorship has been proved by Rosemary Freeman:[14]    

1605	10513	S. D.	[Thomas] S[orocol]D
1633	12958	H. A.	[Henry] HA[awkins]

The initials S. W. in various books of Robert Southwell (as 1591-22950) probably represent S[outh]W[ell]. The following conjecture is cited without endorsement:  

1627

15110

S. P. L.

Sir James SemPilL

N&Q, 5th ser., V (1876), 7-8

The degree of elaboration to which juggling of initials might extend is illustrated in the famous pseudonym Smectymnuus (1641-Wing M748), constructed of the initials of Stephen Marshal and four

other Puritan divines (uuw). I have noticed no other instance of such complexity. Reference may be made to an excessively rare class, monograms like the blended HCL of Romulus and Tarquin (1637-17219). Booksellers have advanced solutions that are not only farfetched but unnecessary, for the device is fully clarified by the second edition as H[enry Lord] C[ary of] L[eppington].

Mystifications: Perverse or Tolerable?

Initials derived from pseudonyms occur among the works of Francis Godwin:

   

1638	11943	E. M.	Edward Mahon	Misprint in STC
1629	11944	Ed. M. Ch.

These were correctly explained as masks of Godwin by the late Grant McColley,[15] but he did not account for the Ch. in the second. McColley overlooked essential evidence in another Godwin book (1616-11941), which has the formula: "Edw. Mahonides, Aliàs Christopher." Why Godwin adopted this pseudonym remains a mystery.

More common is the use of arbitrary initials as pseudonyms. At least they appear arbitrary, although they may have had esoteric meaning to the perpetrator. The signature B.C. seems meaningless, whether The Dolefull Knell (1607-19403) was written by Robert Parsons or by Philip Woodward.[16] Why should Thomas Heywood sign an epistle N. R. (1631-13313)? Many other examples are at hand, but overindulgence may induce a state of lying all night staring at one's great toe, about which initials —as namely, B[en] I[onson] (1613-22218) —fight in one's imagination.

One's sympathy with initial-mongers is reserved for the persecuted minorities who had good reason for camouflage. Disguised names of Catholic controversialists have been liberally cited. Here is another example involving both author and patron:

 

1595

18326

C. N. dedicates to Ladie M. C. A.

A saint's life (1609-4830) is dedicated to Ladie D. I., English recusant at Louvain. The internal evidence, matched with our extensive knowledge of this community,[17] proves beyond doubt that the woman was Cardinal Allen's sister-in-law, Mrs. Elizabeth Allen.

But dissenters as well as recusants had good reason to conceal identities, and it is in this field that one finds the leviathan of all initials. John Penry addresses part of a rare pamphlet ([1593]-19608) to the following congregation in London, "the distressed faithful. . . wither in bondes or at liberty":

Here affixes like Master are scattered so confusingly that a detailed solution is impossible. It is not only impossible; it is supererogatory, for the names of the group are preserved in the records of the persecution.[18] The plight of these sufferers for conscience reflect another world from the smart mystifications of professional writers.[19]

Notes