University of Virginia Library

William Hunnis and the 1577 Paradise of Dainty Devices
by
Steven W. May

Professor Hyder Rollins based his edition of The Paradise of Dainty Devices, the most popular Elizabethan anthology of poetry, upon nine of its ten known editions printed between 1576 and 1606. Rollins decided that all references to the lost 1577 edition of the Paradise could probably be traced to the copy described by William Herbert in his revision of Ames's Typographical Antiquities. From Herbert's testimony, Rollins concluded "beyond reasonable doubt that the 1577 and 1578 editions were identical, or, more accurately, that B [1578], was simply a reprint of X [1577]."[1] I intend to show, however, that the 1577 edition was by no means merely reprinted in 1578, but that it comprises an independent stage in the anthology's evolution, as do the editions of 1578, 1580, and 1585. Twelve new texts were introduced in 1577, more than in any later edition. Among them is William Hunnis' long-sought elegy for his first patron, William, First Earl of Pembroke, a poem which appeared only in this second edition of the anthology. The signatures to sixteen poems were changed, more than in all succeeding editions combined, while scores of textual variants were transmitted from the 1577 Paradise to the later editions. Moreover, the authority of many variant readings as well as changes in authorship can be established, since it is now possible to demonstrate that William Hunnis was personally concerned with the make-up and printing of the 1577 edition. My reconstruction is based on a transcript of the entire book in William Herbert's autograph, now Bodleian MS. Douce e.16.[2]

This manuscript is a vellum bound quarto volume of eleven gatherings, each made up of from sixteen to eighteen leaves. It now contains 162 folios and three flyleaves, of which ff. ii and iii are of thin tracing paper, unlike the rest of the codex. Five leaves have been cut out from the eighth gathering between present ff. 117 and 118. The leaves are of eighteenth-century stock and measure 161 x 201 mm.[3] Herbert's text of the 1577 Paradise occupies ff. 1r, 3r-v, and the rectos only of ff. 4-115, a transcript of twenty-one to thirty-two lines per full page. On ff. 116r and 117r, George Steevens wrote out some notes and the text of a poem which first appeared in the 1580 Paradise. The commentary on this material in Herbert's handwriting on f. 117r shows, however, that the manuscript was still in his possession at the time of Steevens' entry. Its second definite owner was Francis Douce, who stamped his monogram seal on ff. 1, 1v, 88v, 118v, and on f. 118r below his transcription of a poem ascribed to Robert, Earl of Essex.[4] On f. iv Douce listed eight editions of the anthology and the whereabouts of copies known to him, while in the Paradise text itself he jotted down a few scattered notes in pencil. Beyond this, neither he nor Steevens seems to have tampered with Herbert's transcript, nor is it likely that they could have done so with authority. The only known copy of the 1577 edition was owned by Sir John Hawkins, as Herbert acknowledges in the Typographical Antiquities,[5] and it seems very probable that this unique copy perished in the fire which destroyed Hawkins' house in Westminster in 1785.[6] Since then, Herbert's transcript has survived as the only witness to the complete text of the 1577 Paradise.

Herbert probably copied the Hawkins text about 1777, to judge from his dated signature on f. i, "Wm Herbert. 1777." He incorporated some of his notes from the inside front cover of the manuscript almost verbatim into his description of the Paradise in the Typographical Antiquities (II, 685), where he treats the 1577 edition as if it were the only one. But on the inside front cover of the manuscript he noted a letter of July 14, 1788, from "G. S." (George Steevens), informing him of six editions of the Paradise, including the first of 1576. Herbert added this material, with acknowledgments to Steevens, and again almost verbatim, to the "Corrections and Additions" in Vol. III of the Antiquities (1790), 1792. Apparently, then, this manuscript served Herbert as a working notebook of materials related to the Paradise, all centered of course on his transcript of the 1577 edition.

By 1814 at the latest Francis Douce had acquired the manuscript, for in that year William Beloe acknowledges, in describing the 1577 Paradise, that "Mr. Douce possesses a Transcript by the late Mr. Herbert . . . with the use of which he has obligingly accommodated me." Moreover, Beloe's list of the various editions of the Paradise and owners of individual copies clearly shows that he followed Douce MS. e.16, for he reproduces almost exactly the list which Douce had added to Herbert's notes on f. iv.[7] Douce willed his main collection of manuscripts to the Bodleian Library at his death, but reserved a number of papers, including this manuscript, to the custody of the British Museum, with instructions that they not be examined before 1900. In 1933 the British Museum transferred these materials to the Bodleian, where the Herbert/Douce manuscript became MS. Douce e.16.

Just how accurately Herbert copied the 1577 Paradise may be estimated beyond his reputation as a careful bibliographer, for about 1780 he undertook the far more difficult task of copying the three volumes of the Stationers' Registers. Franklin Dickey has compared this transcript with the originals and concludes that, while Herbert sometimes "transposes or omits whole entries . . . whatever he does record he sets down with considerable though not absolute accuracy, his infrequent slips being caused by ignorance or by misreading."[8]

Now, the spacing of folio rectos and versos at regular intervals in the Paradise transcript shows that Herbert could not have omitted any substantial portion of the book, and he presumably would have copied this print with fewer misreadings than he did the sixteenth-century hands of the Registers. Furthermore, the Douce e.16 text itself proves that Herbert took pains to copy both accidental and substantive readings exactly. A number of the transcript's most obvious errors, for example, also occur in either the 1576 or 1578 prints, or in both,[9] indicating that Herbert preserved these faults as they had been reprinted in the second edition, or were reprinted from it in the third. Herbert's frequent correction of accidentals which could have no textual importance also shows that he regularly checked his work against the print to be sure that he had copied even minor details correctly.[10] This is not to say, of course, that his work is without error; certainly the phrases omitted at 41.21, 52.13, and 88.31, all of which appear fully in the 1576 and 1578 editions, suggest scribal lapses. On the other hand, the 1577 Paradise undoubtedly printed unique errors of its own, and I do not claim that any of these mistakes are necessarily Herbert's. Rather, his duplication of misprints, and the very minor corrections which he added to his work argue that this is a meticulously prepared transcript from which the 1577 Paradise can be reconstructed with a high degree of reliability.

Herbert's is a continuous rather than page-by-page transcript, and it does not record the signatures, catchwords, running-heads, or pagination, if any, of the original. Presumably, the 1577 edition was printed in black letter, as were the other three editions, 1576, 1578, and 1580, by Henry Disle, the original printer of the Paradise. If so, Herbert's use of a broken underline in his transcript must represent italics, for corresponding passages in these other editions appear in italic type. By the same token, Herbert's solid underline seems to indicate roman type, while solid and broken underlining together represent capital roman or italic letters. The stanzas of each poem are numbered with arabic numerals in the transcript, although this is probably Herbert's addition, since the numerals are found in no other

edition and appear in a red pencil or crayon rather than in the ink of the rest of the manuscript. Herbert records the indentation of lines and layout of stanzas on the page, as well as foliation.[11] A new leaf is indicated, usually in the left margin, with "Fo." and an arabic numeral, and is followed in the transcript with "b" to mark the verso. Working from this foliation and Herbert's statement that the 1577 Paradise was a quarto, we can reconstruct its probable format.

The title page (f. 1 of the manuscript) was probably signed A1,[12] and was no doubt ornamented, as were Disle's other editions of the anthology, with his oval seal, as traced on f. iii:

The Compton arms, traced on f. ii, were no doubt printed on the verso of the title page, signature A1v, as they were in the other editions of 1576-1580. The dedicatory letter following the title page on f. 3 of the manuscript must have occupied signature A2r, while A2v is indicated by the "b" to the left of Disle's heading for the errata list which precedes the poetry in this edition. The first poem, Rollins' No. 1, apparently began at the top of A3r, which is the first folio recorded by Herbert. Although no "Fo. 1" occurs in the transcript, a "b" in the left margin at line 35 of poem No. 1 marks the verso of a third leaf, and is followed thirty-five lines below with "Fo. 2", which apparently designates A4r. Hereafter, new leaves and their versos are noted at regular intervals of thirty-three to thirty-five lines to a total of forty-six leaves.[13] Counting the first leaf, with the title page and Compton arms, and the second, with the dedicatory letter and errata list, the 1577 edition was composed of forty-eight leaves, which neatly conforms to the requirements of a quarto of twelve gatherings, probably signed A-M.

Both the first and second editions of the Paradise contained ninety-nine poems (I count Nos. 23/101 and 72/109 as one each throughout this analysis), but twelve poems from the 1576 collection were replaced by twelve new ones in 1577.[14] The 1578 Paradise differs from both its predecessors by omitting No. 38, and while Rollins conjectured that No. 110 almost certainly appeared first in 1577, this poem is in fact unique to the 1578 Paradise. Thus only eleven of the twelve poems introduced in the second edition reappeared in the third, for the following elegy by William Hunnis is in turn unique to the edition of 1577:

• Fo. 17 33. Vpon the life and death of the noble Earle of Penbrooke.
• Let such as striue, for honors prayse, with palme to bere the sway: Pursue the pathes that Penbrooke, past, to honors redy way.
• Deuoide was he of schoole deuice, by arte to clyme so hy: And yet he raught, Pernassus mount, wherein the musis ly.
• By wisdome greate, by vertu more, the laborinthe he ran: Where men of swifter foote then he, soone lost ye way they wan.
• By grace thus guided in the gulfe, of grim and gloming Seas: With barke of blis, ye surge he brake, & got the day with eaes.
• From worthy race, of Herberts lyne, a Penbrooke tyme brought out: A valiant Knight, a noble Earll, of courage haute & stout.
• Thus vertue vaunsing by degrees, to honor did him rayse: With golden garter on his leg vnto his endles prayse.
• Of preeuy counsell to a King, and withe too Queenes also: A freende to many in his time, to none at all a foe.
• For peace he sought, ye same he found, when braules began to breede: [15 And where his faith, he did assure, a freende he was in deede.

---

69




• His gresly heares, wth grauer yeeres, from gracious Queene possest: A staffe with cheefe aucthority, of houshould with the rest.
• If phisickes helpe, possessions greate, or fauor of his prince: If seruaunts faith, his childrens plaints, might force of Death conuince.
• He had not dyed. but such is death, and such the state of man: When time is come, he must returne, from where he first began.
• If men by right, may merit prayse, whilst life in them a peere: Then doth ye end of this good Earle, deserue greate prayses here.
• For that by faith on Christe he fed, and did beleue therein: To be deluiered [sic] from ye yoke, and burden of his sinne.
• His rage of youth, and follies paste, which fame doth not deny: With serching sighes & bitter teares, for mercy could he cry.
• And when he felte, his panting breth, by weakenes to decay: My childe quoth he, fall on thy knee, & with thy father pray.
• This plant which earst, might not suppres, ye flame of natures fire: A ghostly counseler coulde become, vnto his aged sier.
• When pinchinge panges, aproched ny, & that his speache was gon: A signe was craued by his sonne, to feede his ioyes vppon.
• Whereat the father with his hande colde knocke vppon his brest: In token that, his minde was good, and so doth take his rest.
• The courters all, bewaile his want, and with one voyce Can say: The comeliest courtier in the courte, by death is tane away.
• FINIS. W. Hunnis. [ff. 42-43]

In her biography of Hunnis, Mrs. Stopes theorized that he must have written something to commemorate the death of his patron, William Herbert, First Earl of Pembroke of the second creation, who died March 17, 1569/70.[15] While no other copy of Hunnis' elegy seems to have survived, it might well have been registered among the six elegies for Pembroke in the Stationers' Register,[16] for it is highly improbable that Hunnis waited until seven years after Pembroke's death to publish it. Had it been licensed and published ca. 1570 this might account for its occurrence in only the 1577 Paradise, and for

some part of the twenty shilling fine levied against Disle by the Stationers' Company on June 20, 1577, "for printinge a booke vnlaufullie and the booke vnallowed."[17] Rollins suggested that Disle might have incurred this fine for publishing the 1577 edition itself (p. xli), since it had not been registered. The normal fine for printing an unlicensed book at this time, however, was about five shillings, and only ten shillings for printing one against the ordinances of the Stationers' Company.[18] Possibly, Disle's fine was augmented because he published an unlicensed, unregistered book, and within it, Hunnis' elegy on Pembroke which belonged to another printer. Whether or not this explains Disle's abnormally large fine, and the omission of this poem from subsequent editions of the Paradise, the appearance of Hunnis' long-sought elegy here is one of the most unexpected features of the 1577 edition, and one which distinguishes it from all others.

Beyond these changes in content, the second edition differs substantially from the first with regard to the authorship of its poems. This is reflected on the verso of the 1577 title page in the list of contributors printed beneath the Compton arms:

       

Saint Barnard.	Iasper Heywod.
E. O.	F. Kindlemarsh.
Lord Vaux the elder	D. Sand
W. Hunis.	M. Yloop.

Two names from the 1576 title page, "M. Bevve", and "R. Hill", are omitted here, while the "D. S." and "F. K." of the first edition are expanded, and "W. Hunis" is added. Within the anthology, moreover, sixteen of the eighty-seven poems which occur in both the first and second editions receive new or altered ascriptions in 1577. These changes all survive in the edition of 1578, which seems to have been set up for the most part from a lightly corrected copy of the second edition. Despite the claims of its title pages, "the most part" of the Paradise poems were never assigned to Richard Edwards, although his ascriptions do increase from ten in 1576 to seventeen in 1577, plus the couplet added to Hunnis' poem 72/109. The second edition decreases the number of attributions to Lord Vaux from thirteen to eleven, deletes two poems by "M. B." (Nos. 49 and 58), and transfers Bewe's remaining works (Nos. 67, 73, and 82) to Hunnis, Edwards, and Oxford respectively; thus, Bewe is eliminated from both the text and title page. But the most significant changes in authorship concern the number of poems assigned to William Hunnis, from only seven in 1576 to eighteen in 1577, so that Hunnis becomes the largest single contributor to the Paradise. He nevertheless loses two poems in 1577 which were attributed to him in the first edition: No. 61 (actually by Sir Thomas Wyatt) and No. 70, both of which are also omitted from all later editions of the anthology. These losses are more than offset, however, by assigning to Hunnis six poems which were either anonymous or assigned to others in the first edition (Nos. 5, 48, 64, 67, 88, and 94), and by crediting him with seven of the twelve new poems introduced in 1577 (his elegy for Pembroke plus Nos. 105-108, 111, and 112). Still, a thorough understanding of Hunnis' part in this edition emerges only after studying the variant readings of the 1576 and 1577 texts.

In the following chart, the eleven poems from the first edition which were assigned to Hunnis in the second[19] are compared on the basis of errors corrected, new errors, and other substantive changes, with the total number of words involved in each change shown in parentheses. The same analysis is provided for similar amounts of verse by Edwards, Vaux, Kinwelmarsh, and a group of the remaining poems selected at random.

Textual Variants Between the 1576 and 1577 Editions

           

Poet	Errors Corrected	New Errors	Other Substantive Changes
Edwards	7 (10)	7 (7)	9 (10)
Kinwelmarsh	4 (4)	7 (9)	4 (8)
Vaux	4 (4)	6 (9)	---
Random Group	5 (5)	12 (14)	5 (8)
Hunnis	11 (11)	5 (5)	28 (43)

This analysis deals with forty-five of the eighty-seven poems common to both the 1576 and 1577 editions, and reveals that a significantly greater number of substantive changes were made in the poems assigned to Hunnis than in those of any other poet or poets in the anthology. Moreover, few of the "Other Substantive Changes" in Hunnis' works are really preferable to the former readings, even though they include several wholly recast lines. These corrections tend mainly to heighten alliteration or to regularize and even over-regularize the meter; they are accordingly of the very kind that Hunnis, a representative poet of the 1570's, would have made in his own work.

Despite this concentrated revision of his work, a study of all eighteen poems assigned to Hunnis in 1577 reveals that errors crept into his texts at about the same rate as for other poets in the volume. But this, far from indicating that Hunnis was not directly concerned with the second edition, brings us to the most dramatic evidence of his personal involvement with it, the errata list.[20] Such a precaution

against error is found only in the second edition of the Paradise, and in order to print it, as Herbert's transcript indicates, on A2v, Disle had to squeeze the dedicatory letter onto only one page (A2r), whereas it had occupied an entire leaf in the first edition. Beyond this inconvenience, the errata list does not improve the Paradise texts in general. Disle's justification for it, that he "would geue no occasion of offence to the Aucthours of the ditties (who for the most part are vnknowen to me)" is misleading, for the ten corrections apply to eight poems all assigned to one author, William Hunnis.[21] Now, it is inconceivable that the printer would have voluntarily troubled himself with an errata list just for Hunnis after already changing more than three times as many readings in his poems as for any other contributor. Rather, Hunnis must have personally read the sheets and demanded certain corrections before the entire edition had been printed. The seventh correction in the list, a substitution of "vow" for "moue" at 67.16, was apparently made before all the sheets were printed, for this

correction occurs in Herbert's transcript. The others, none of which are recorded in the chart above, correct six errors in Hunnis' poems and add four more substantive changes, involving a total of twenty words. This extraordinary attention to Hunnis' poems, the addition of his name to the title page and to six poems not attributed to him in the first edition, besides the fact that he contributed seven of the twelve new poems in the second edition, all argue strongly for his personal involvement with the printing. Hunnis' works here constitute, I believe, an "edition" which was revised, proofread, and corrected by the author.

Mrs. Stopes noticed that in editions of the Paradise after the first, "the greatest number of variations occur in the poems attributed to William Hunnis";[22] but contrary to what she implies, there is no evidence that Hunnis was directly concerned with any but the 1577 Paradise. The surprising number of variants she found in the later editions resulted from the ever more corrupted reprintings of the changes he made in the second edition. Nor does the evidence from the 1577 Paradise support the idea that Hunnis helped to make ends meet by acting as Richard Edwards' literary executor.[23] The two men were no doubt closely associated as members of the Chapel Royal between Hunnis' admission ca.1550-1553,[24] and Edwards' death in 1566. And some literary connection between them may be inferred from the addition in 1577 of two lines by Edwards to Hunnis' poem No. 72/109. Yet Hunnis clearly did not supply Disle with Edwards' manuscript in the first place, nor did he work with him on the edition of 1576, where his contributions are obscured by faulty texts and signatures. Instead, Hunnis must have been appalled at finding himself so misrepresented, and in the second edition he diligently corrected and enhanced his part in the anthology.

This attention to the 1577 Paradise is but one of several projects Hunnis undertook between 1575 and 1581 in what was for him an unprecedented burst of literary output. In 1575 he contributed to the

famous Kenilworth Entertainment, while his Hyue Full of Hunnye was entered in the Stationers' Register in 1577, his Handful of Honisuckles in 1578, and his Seuen Sobs of a Sorrowful Soule in 1581. This activity must somehow be linked with his replacement as Master of the Children of the Chapel Royal by Richard Farrant from at least 1576 until Farrant's death on November 30, 1580. Hunnis' sudden interest in seeing his works published during these years argues against Chambers' theory that he remained in fact Master of the Children, while Farrant merely served him as a deputy.[25] The flood of publications quickly receded after Hunnis was restored to the Mastership; indeed, he brought out only one more book between 1582 and his death in 1597, the Hunnies Recreations of 1588. Between 1576 and 1580, he may have kept his place as a Gentleman of the Chapel, and he probably supported himself in part as a grocer and as Supervisor of the Gardens at Greenwich.[26] Yet leisure, necessity, or both caused him to publish frequently and to seek a patron, neither of which he had attempted to do, so far as is known, since the Earl of Pembroke's death in 1570.

The publication of Hunnis' elegy on Pembroke may constitute a bid for patronage from the earl's son, Henry, Second Earl of Pembroke, who figures prominently toward the end of the poem. The Handfull of Honisuckles was dedicated to the Ladies of the Privy Chamber, and the Seuen Sobs to Frances Radcliffe, Lady Sussex; for the most part, however, Hunnis sought the attention of the Earl of Leicester, who perhaps commissioned Hunnis' part in the Kenilworth extravaganza. His next tribute to Leicester may be represented by Folger MS. X.d.459 (12), Hunnis' holograph letter dedicating to "My Lo." a book by another, unnamed author, which deals with "the preseruation of the health of a noble creature, a Horse." As Master of the Queen's Horse since 1559, Leicester would have been a likely recipient of such a work, and indeed the anonymous Remedies for Diseases in Horses (STC 20870) was dedicated to him by the bookseller in 1576. Hunnis, then, may have presented Leicester with his letter and a copy of the book, though his right to appropriate the volume for such use remains obscure. At any rate, Hunnis was securely in Leicester's favor by 1578, for his Hyue Full of Hunnye appeared in that year with his patron's arms on the verso of the title page, and its dedicatory verses thank Leicester for his generosity. This patronage is also confirmed by the fact that Hunnis' son, Robert, was in Leicester's

service from at least 1579 until 1586, and Leicester described Hunnis in a letter of September 19, 1581, as "my frend . . . that I wish right well vnto."[27] Hunnis' concern with the 1577 Paradise, then, was part of an overall effort between 1575 and 1581 to increase his reputation as a man of letters, and to establish himself as the protégé of another powerful nobleman. That he found it worthwhile to obtain a prominent place in the second edition of the Paradise provides one further measure of the anthology's contemporary importance and esteem.

The textual significance of the 1577 Paradise differs from that of all other editions as a result of Hunnis' part in its composition. Although most of the second edition was apparently set up from a corrected copy of the first, it is clear that Hunnis' 1577 texts are more authoritative than those which had appeared in 1576. It is just possible, too, that Richard Edwards' verse is more reliably set forth in 1577 than in 1576, for the second edition gives him six new ascriptions plus a relatively high number of corrections and new readings. Perhaps Hunnis paid some attention to Edwards' works as well as his own while supervising the 1577 Paradise. For the remaining works common to the first two editions, we might reasonably transfer to the 1577 text Professor Rollins' judgment on that of 1578: "it makes many more or less authoritative changes in the readings of A [1576]" (p. xx). Many of the 1578 readings do correct those of both 1576 and 1577, yet agreement in error suggests that the third edition was printed from a lightly corrected copy of the second; it thus has no independent authority, and it adds many new errors of its own. Indeed, of the ten corrections in the 1577 errata list, only three (106.22, 106.26, and 112.4) found their way into the 1578 text. Except for the works of Hunnis, and perhaps Edwards, it seems that the most reliable texts in the first three editions of the Paradise are those of the earliest edition in which each work appears.

Herbert's transcript, to summarize, provides us with the most significantly altered of any of the last nine editions of the Paradise with regard to overall content, attributions, and textual authority. Of the twelve poems introduced in the second edition, only Hunnis' elegy for Pembroke disappeared from the later editions. The next three editions (1578, 1580, and 1585) added another fifteen poems to the anthology, only ten of which appeared after 1585. Thus the 1577 Paradise added more new and continuously reprinted poems than did

any later edition or editions. Nor do we find wholesale changes in attributions after 1577: by 1600 only three signatures were altered (Nos. 4, 57, and 88), as compared with sixteen in the second edition. Finally, for all eighteen poems by Hunnis, for seven new works by other authors, and possibly for Edwards' sixteen poems carried over from the first edition, Herbert's transcript of the 1577 Paradise provides the most authoritative texts. From MS. Douce e.16 there emerges, then, a distinctly important version of this anthology; its reconstruction brings to light a missing poem by William Hunnis and reveals his considerable influence on the 1577 Paradise, and through it, on all subsequent editions.

The collations below follow the text as well as page and line numbering of Professor Rollins' edition, but I include only substantive readings and do not list all the types of variants recorded in Rollins' collations. Differences in the layout of poems on the page or information which may be gathered above, such as the numbering of the poems and most of the changes in authorship, are all omitted.

• Collation of the 1576 Paradise of Dainty Devices (A), with the Edition of 1577 (X) from the Transcript in MS. Douce e.16.
• 3.21 theyr] Om.
• 4.1-2 ditties both] ditties are both (are with caret, above line)
• 4.10 it] Om.
• 4.18 be the] be
• 5.12 flittes] flies
• 6.2 dux] lux
• 6.25 in] to
• 7.27 my good] good my
• 8.10 prisons] prisoners
• 8.16 Finis] FINIS. M.
• 8.25 flee] flie
• 8.31 matcht] match
• 8.36 E. S. ] W. R.
• 9.1 Fol.1.] Fo.2.
• 9.5 thou] you
• 10.8 Finis.] FINIS. M. Edwardes.
• 10.17 on] one
• 10.20 rales] tales
• 11.6 1no] not
• 11.10 M.] FINIS. M.
• 12.21 aucthour] anchour
• 12.29 K. ] Kindlemarsh
• 13.2 Easter] For Easter.
• 13.16 thou] you
• 13.19 no] not
• 14.15 Not] Nor
• 14.27 M. Kindlemarsh] F. K.
• 15.16 So] To
• 16.31 Fortune] Vertue

---

77




• 17.2 is] of
• 17.12 Aste] As to
• 17.34 way] where
• 18.23 sowe] see
• 18.28 dooth] doo
• 18.30 in vayne] Om.
• 19.5 fled] fed
• 20.15 in] in the
• 21.8 blast; rolling] blaze; rouing
• 21.16 is to me] seemes to be
• 21.25 lose] loss
• 22.3 redoundeth] renowndeth
• 24.22 not then my] then not my
• 25.17 Respise finem.] Remember thy ende.
• 25.31 both] doth
• 26.3 in] it
• 26.10 thing] thinges
• 26.12-17 ] Om.
• 27.10 leue . . . neuer] loue and lust might euer
• 27.11 Nor . . . from] Or youth might runne in
• 27.12 Nor] Or
• 27.15 makes] make
• After 27.17 ] two additional stanzas, collated below, 100.26-34.
• 27.20 2the] their
• 27.33 had] hath
• 28.32 be] in
• 28.33 to] wth
• 29.5 haue I] I haue
• 29.6 woord . . . was] woordes & deedes were
• 30.14 with] the; thus] this
• 30.22 Among] Amongst
• 30.34 height] highe
• 31.2 my] by
• 31.4 like] one
• 31.24 which] that
• 32.3 Fraud . . . Fortune] FRamd in the front of Forlornd hope
• 32.4 to abide] 'tabide
• 32.11 plaintes] plantes
• 32.16 yt] the
• 33.24 we] he
• 35.27 doe] downe
• 36.13 shame] shun
• 36.26 warlike] warlikes
• 37.4 one] an
• 37.7 geues] geues a
• 37.10 releeue] reuiue
• 38.17 we see] Om.
• 38.32 wrong] Om.
• After 40.33 ] FINIS. T. Marshall.
• 41.4 night] might
• 41.21 floweth] sloweth: of wealth] Om.
• 41.23 vaunteth] haunteth
• 43.14 inspect] inspeit
• 43.27 scarre] scarce
• 44.5 these] those

---

78




• 44.10 paines] panges
• 44.27 deadly] derdly
• 46.9 the] thy
• 46.22 her bowe] ther vowe
• 47.24 carpet] carped
• 47.28 wyl] wilt
• 48.4-12 ] Om.
• 49.12 sometyme] sometimes
• 50.12 2sore] sweete
• 50.13 rest] cease
• 50.15 vntill] till that
• 50.16 the] this
• 50.17, 25, 33 is the renuyng] renuing is
• 50.23 liue] life
• 51.6 nature] creature
• 51.13 armes] arme
• 51.14 stout] flout
• 51.18 M.] FINIS. M.
• 52.13 what panges] Om.
• 52.15 and] as
• 53.4, 10, 16, 22 you doe] that you
• 53.14 walles . . . to] where the walles of wealth lye
• 53.18 doeth] wyll
• 53.19 There] Where
• 53.30 line] lines
• 53.31 was] is
• 53.33 well] weake
• 54.15 my] your
• 54.30 ] 52. Being forsaken of his frend he complaineth
• 55.11 The] And
• 55.21 her] his
• 55.22 she] he
• 55.31 lightnings] lightning
• 56.17 did] was
• 57.3 clime] claim
• 57.4 Finis.] FINIS. M. Edwardes.
• 58.11 Finis.] FINIS. M. Edwardes
• 59.6 yt] ye
• 59.9 ones] one
• 59.10 Finis.] FINIS. M. Edwardes
• 59.32 thus to rage] this to range
• 60.10 Finis qd F. M.] FINIS. M. Edwardes.
• 60.12 are] or
• 60.26 as liketh so] or liketh to
• 60.35 salue] saue
• 61.18 so is] is so
• 63.3 thē] ye mind
• 63.5 minde for euery] minds foreuer: therefore] in store
• 63.7 release] releaf
• 63.12 A] Oh
• 63.13 Musick] Of musick
• 64.27 to start, and still] <fly> to start & flye
• 64.29 his] my
• 65.4 request] require
• 65.8 W. H.] FINIS. M. Hunnis.

---

79




• 65.22 W. H.] FINIS. W. Hunnis
• 66.17 waies] iaws
• 66.20 forme] time
• 66.30 that] than
• 66.33 M.] FINIS. M.
• 67.3 youth] ruth
• 67.6 thoughts] thoughte
• 67.8 ayer] heire
• 67.13 harte] hears
• 67.17 your . . . purtende] & that to be pretende
• 67.19 striue] stroue
• 67.21 M. H.] M. Hunnis
• 67.25 bloudy] bouldned
• 68.2 flatteries] flatterie: my] ye
• 68.4 finde] try
• 68.5 Panters] Panter
• 68.8 dares] dare
• 68.11 Finis.] FINIS. M. Hunnis
• 68.19 Or] And: the] a
• 68.20 He . . . space] Doth frame him selfe a pace
• 68.29 W. Hunis] FINIS. M. Hunnis
• 70.25 to] his mishapp to
• 70.27 shal] hath
• 71.9 would] should
• 71.21 hath] had
• 71.30 M.] FINIS. M.
• 71.31-72.24 ] No. 70 is replaced here under the same title with No. 107, numbered
• 73, collated 107.2-11 below.
• 72.28 fade] vade
• 73.16 noise] voyse
• 73.23 flatterer] fauell
• 73.26 Finis] Om.
• After 73.26] Two more lines, collated 108.9-10 below.
• 73.28 title] A dialog betwene a Gentleman and his loue
• 74.11 no] Om.
• 75.4 close] true
• 75.12-13 Requiryng . . . thus.] Exclaiming vpon his vnkind loue his frend replieth wittely.
• 76.14 againe] gaine
• 78.20 happs] happ
• 78.29 hid] hide
• 80.5 is suche] such, as
• 80.27 R. H.] R. Hill.
• 83.23 without] with my
• 84.23 let her mone] let mone
• 84.28 [I] ] Om.
• 85.28 O.] Oxf.
• 86.17 O.] Ox.
• 87.20 by] my
• 87.29 vnder] vnto
• 87.31 hate] bate
• 88.8 stepps] slepps: cares] care
• 88.11 1might] night: 2might] steps
• 88.31 with vs] Om.
• 90.12 stoppeth] stouppeth

---

80




• 90.24 at] as
• 91.19 That] Than
• 92.5 it] hit
• 92.13 I] thou
• 92.18 case] cause
• 92.19 cares] teares
• 92.29 berent] all rent
• 93.4 that] ye
• 93.5 Whiche] That
• 93.23 take] toke
• 93.29 I. H.] I. Hayward.
• 95.25 likt] like
• 95.30 plain] plaint
• 96.6 F. K.] F. Kindlemarshe.
• 96.27 tis] its
• 96.32-33 ] Om.
• 96.34 1576.] 1577.
• Poems from the edition of 1578 (B)
• 99.6 which] that
• 99.9 Oxe] Oke
• 99.22 vayles] auayles
• 99.25 oft] of
• 99.28-29 ] Om.
• 100.3 or] are
• 100.7-8 ] Om.
• 100.12 ] No. 101 Printed one rime to the line as in A.
• 100.13 Affectes] effectes
• 100.21 thy] The
• 100.22 list] lust
• 100.24 makes] make
• 100.34 Tho. Churchyard.] T. H. C. H.
• 101.12 freende] freends: he] they
• 102.2 you] your
• 102.5 vermine] vermines
• 102.13 sods] floods
• 102.15 2for] our
• 102.21 Vertues] vertuous: vertues] vertuous
• 105.7 ] No. 104 Printed one rime line to the line.
• 105.15 last] waste
• 105.24 bralls] brall
• 106.12 searche] serue
• 106.22 consent] <comfort> consent
• 106.25 chuse] chose
• 106.26 consente] <comfort> consent
• 106.27 bee] me
• 107.4 leaflesse] leueles
• 107.26 fruite] fruites
• 107.29 is] was
• 108.7 are] art
• 111.11 requited] conquered
• 111.12 muse] maze
• 111.14 of] in
• 111.27 vessall] vassal
• 111.30 abound in wealth] in welth abound
• 112.3 postes] posses

Notes