University of Virginia Library

The Derby MS Book of Cotton's Poems and "Contentation" Re-Considered
by
Alvin I. Dust

Numerous scholars and bibliophiles[1] have consulted the Derby MS[2] book of poems by Charles Cotton (1630-1687), but only one[3] has treated this

literary artifact as a book, open to the principles of analytical bibliography. This paper shall attempt a closer analysis and will, perhaps, clarify problems concerning the MS of Cotton's "Contentation." Earlier articles about this poem[4] were based upon microfilm copies or second-hand information which have proved unreliable or have led to incomplete information.[5]

For describing DBL MS, pagination, though rather erratic, offers some aid. At present, the volume opens with one loose, unnumbered leaf and the stubs of several leaves wanting. The next succeeding pages still adhering to the binding are numbered 1-31, within parentheses. Then the verso following p. 31 is unnumbered but the next recto is properly designated 33, without parentheses. The practice of numbering only rectos but preserving the series (i.e., p. 34 is unnumbered, but 35 carries 35, etc.)[6] continues with few omissions until 258, the last of the present pages, but in this closing again occur stubs of several removed leaves. Besides opening and closing excisions, a few medial leaves have been cancelled or roughly torn out.

Fortunately for bibliographic study, the DBL MS is somewhat shaken in its binding, likely caused by accelerated usage since the 1938 announcement by Turner of its location.[7] This looseness allows careful examination of a

majority of the unsigned gatherings. On the basis of this knowledge, one can infer an original collation, which, I suggest, should read: 2, [A-S]8 (omitting, as usual, J from the series). Succeeding comments will be offered in support of this collation.

It is fairly easy to arrive at what must have been the original gatherings B and C and only slightly more difficult to deduce the A gathering because of the present weak state of the binding and because of the missing leaves of gathering A. Here one must rely on further evidence from watermarks. All the paper of the MS pages, plus those now held by Yale, to which I shall refer later, came from one source. The folio sheet contained a watermark in one half of the sheet similar to that shown as Gaskell's horn design,[8] if one compares examples of both. One notes that the horn, as in his illustration, is turned, opening to the left and mouthpiece to the right, but the DBL MS design is somewhat embellished with additional scrolls and the horn sits on a plinth with the letters G DVRAND, likely the name of the maker or the paper-house. Above the horn is a further design from which a circlet is pendant, holding the carrying cord for the horn. Chain and wire lines appear as expected. Measurement of the sheet is not here relevant, since the MS edges have deteriorated so far that present size in relation to the original could only reflect guesswork, not bibliographically dependable. The second half of each sheet contained no countermark.[9]

Now to return to the collation. Gathering B. easily lifted free from the stitching and therefore readily revealing conjugancy of leaves, contains four sheets, the leaves of which are designated B1-8, with sewing occurring in the gutter between B4 and B5. B4 is an 'O' leaf, B5 is watermarked; B3 contains a watermark, but B6 is an 'O' leaf; B1 and 2 are 'O' leaves, but B7 and 8 have watermarks.

From this exposition one can infer that the original state of A gathering was likely also a gathering in eights, but has suffered loss of leaves. At present one has a loose, unnumbered leaf with the watermark, a series of stubs before the gutter, stitching in the gutter between stubs and four succeeding

leaves, the first three of which show watermarks, and the fourth is an 'O' leaf. These latter four leaves are now paginated 1, 2; 3, 4; 5, 6; and 7, 8. By the watermarks one can now assert that the present, loose unnumbered leaf, with watermark, was originally A1, conjugate with A8, and that A2, 3, 4 are wanting 'O' leaves. The stitching, as in B gathering, was made between A4 (missing) and A5, which has a watermark as A6, 7 have watermarks. A8, an 'O' leaf, therefore, was, no doubt, the conjugate of the loose, watermarked leaf, designated A1.

Gathering C shows stitching between C4 and C5: C4 is an 'O' leaf and C5 carries the watermark. The same is true of C3 and C6; C3 is an 'O' leaf and C6 is watermarked. In C2 and C7, C2 has the watermark and C7 is an 'O' leaf. In the final sheet of this gathering, C1 is 'O' and C8 is watermarked.

D gathering presents a minor problem in that it exhibits a neatly excised leaf now represented by only a trimmed stub between D4 and D2. The conformation of the gathering is this: D4, watermarked, is conjugate with D5, an 'O' leaf; D3 (missing), a watermarked leaf, was conjugate with 'O' leaf D6, and D2 and 1, watermarked, are conjugates of 'O' leaves D7, 8. At present the pages are numbered 41-50, with the stub of the removed leaf in the gap following pp. 43-44, therefore D3. Since the poem "To my Friend Mr. John Anderson. From the Countrey" (POSO[10], pp. 376-380, Bb4v-Bb6v) in eight stanzas, 64 lines, begins on pp. 44 and continues without interruption past the former position of the cancelled leaf, one would have to reason here that Cotton took a single leaf to the binder, or perhaps his amanuensis gave the MS to the binder with the instruction to cancel a messy leaf on which part of the "To Anderson" poem was written, but then re-written more legibly on the following leaf.

The E and F gatherings seem, physically, on the surface, to cause no problems, appearing to conform to the pattern of gatherings of eights, but a study of watermarks dispels quick solution if one considers mis-ordering of poetic contents of the involved pages. It appears that, long after binding, perhaps in the present century, a series of leaves at the end of gathering E and the opening of F had become dis-bound, and a former owner, least likely a library curator, used glue to adhere the loose leaves to those more secure, by tipping in four single leaves. Apparently a modern glue, which is colorless, fastens together gutter sides of E6, 7, 8, and F1, now deterring further investigation.

In gathering E, sewing appears in the regular position between E4 and 5; the former contains the watermark, the latter is 'O'. E3 and 6 are both 'O' leaves when one should show a watermark, and E2 and 7 are both watermarked, when one should be 'O'. E1 and 8 are both 'O'; one should be watermarked. The F gathering is sewn between F4 and 5, the former watermarked, the latter 'O'. The gathering shows watermarks in acceptable positions, except

for what appears to be a sheet comprising F1 and 8; both signatures are watermarked when one should be 'O'.

These two gatherings are now numbered (in modern times) from pp. 55-86, though the contents of only a few of these pages figure in the mis-ordering of the poetry. Chappel first called attention to the problem when he wrote: "At this point [p. 65 in the MS] two folio sheets have been folded back to front and their positions reversed; the correct order is pp. 71, 72, 69, 70, 67, 68, 65, 66."[11] A chart of the mis-ordered poems follows:

       

Title	Description	DBL Reference	POSO Reference
"An Ode of Johannes Secundus. To my dear Tutor Mr. Ralph Rawson."	4 stanzas, 16 lines	p. 71 (12 lines) and p. 72 (last 4 lines)	pp. 547-548, (Nn2)
"Elegy"	66 lines	p. 72 (10 lines), p. 69 (next 14 lines), p. 70 (next 13 lines), p. 67 (next 14 lines), p. 68 (next 13 lines), p. 65 (last 2 lines)	pp. 382-385, (Bb7v-Cc1r)
"Love's World, Translated out of Astrea."	11 stanzas, 44 lines	p. 66 (3 stanzas, 12 lines), p. 73 (4 stanzas, 16 lines), and p. 74 (4 stanzas, last 16 lines)	pp. 549-552, (Nn3r-Nn4v)

Chappel in his discussion did not note gatherings of the DBL MS nor watermarks; likely he considered that mis-ordering involved only one gathering. Perhaps, also, when he examined DBL MS, the binding was in a more solid shape than now.

Let me suggest that, at some time in the past, those leaves that now appear to be E6 (now pp. 65-66), E7 (now numbered 67-68), E8 (now 69-70) and F1 (now 71-72) became detached and were, in the interest of preservation, glued in, in reverse order. This well-meaning preserver, who became a meddler, should have placed the leaves in the following order: Present F1 (now 71-72) in the position of E6, E8 (now 69-70) for E7, E7 (now 67-68) for E8, and E6 (now 65-66) for F1, exactly in the order in which Chappel said the poems should be read. If one follows this reasonable order, then the problem of watermarks and 'O' leaves in gatherings E and F becomes regularized. Note that, if the gluer had replaced the pages properly, we would then find, in gathering E, E1, and 'O' leaf, conjugate with F7 (formerly E8) with watermark; E2, watermark, conjugate with E8 (formerly E7) an 'O' leaf; E3, an 'O', conjugate with F1, watermark. By this plan E gathering is regularized. Also in F gathering, by substituting E6, an 'O' leaf, for the present F1, conjugancy of E6 with present F8, watermarked, is also regularized.

And the poetic order of Chappel is likewise satisfied. Here admittedly minor supporting evidence can be offered. In the DBL MS dust stains appear on the edges of pp. 65, 69, 71, and 72 (present E6, E8, F1) which suggest that these pages had been dis-bound and exposed to the atmosphere, a likely occurrence when they were loose before gluing.

No problems occur in gatherings G-O, but in P gathering appears a stub following P1, now numbered pp. 215-216. Watermarked and 'O' leaves alternate as they should for regular sheets in G-O. Study is facilitated by the fact that gatherings L and M can be now lifted free from the binding, revealing their original state as sewn in gatherings of 8. All other gatherings in this group show stitching in the gutter between each 4 and 5 signature leaves. P gathering, however, follows this formation: P1 is 'O' and P8 carries the watermark; P2, presumably watermarked, is missing, and its conjugate P7 is an 'O' leaf; P3 is 'O' and P6 has a watermark; sewing comes between P4, watermarked, and P5, an 'O' leaf.

Q gathering is complete with Q1, 2, and 3 as 'O' leaves and Q6, 7, and 8 as watermarked; Q4 is watermarked and P5 is an 'O' leaf. The final two gatherings, designated R and S, are so defective, resulting from removed leaves, that one can only make reasoned conjectures as to their original state. A re-constituted make-up of gatherings R and S, to what they probably were originally, will help considerably study of the now separate MS of Cotton's "Contentation" and another, shorter MS, in the James Marshall and Marie-Louise Osborn Collection of Yale University Library.[12]

The remaining leaves of DBL MS are now paginated 245-258; here I shall first consider only two leaves (pp. 245-246 and pp. 247-248) as the survivals of a regular gathering of 8. Each of these two leaves, by the presence of a corresponding stub, shows loss of its conjugate. If the first leaf (pp. 245-246) is given the signature R1, then its missing conjugate was R8; the second, R2 (pp. 247-248), has lost its conjugate, R7. Very loose sewing occurs in the gutter between R2 and the stub of missing R7. It is also plausible that R3, 4, 5, and 6, 4 leaves, have been detached, at some time, from this gathering. The original state of gathering R may have been R1 (pp. 245-246), an 'O' leaf; R2 (pp. 247-248), another 'O' leaf; R3 [which I paginate as 247a and 248a], now wanting; R6 [247b and 248b], now wanting; R5 [247c and 248c], now wanting; R6[247d and 248d], now wanting; R7 [247e and 248e], now wanting, except for its short, ragged stub, and, no doubt, watermarked; R8 [247f and 248f], now wanting except for its stub, and with watermark. For R3-6, I will not even venture a guess at this time, about watermarks; that will come later when I shall make further statements about these missing leaves. Here I should like to press on to the final gathering,

S8. Of S8, we now have pp. 249-258, which follow this pattern: S1 (pp. 249-250) with watermark; S2 (pp. 251-252), watermark; S3 (pp. 253-254), watermark; S4 (pp. 255-256), watermark, followed by sewing and three stubs standing for S5, S6, and S7 [pp. 255a-256a, 255b-256b, 255c-256c], and S8 (pp. 257-258), an 'O' leaf, the final in the volume. Because of the loose binding one knows that the leaf (pp. 249-250), watermarked, is one half of the sheet whose other half is pp. 257-258, an 'O' leaf. Now that the suggested original collation is complete, I can return to the two Yale MSS.

The first, "Contentation", consists of three folio leaves, of which the first recto is blank, the first verso and the following two rectos and versos are filled with writing; the Cromwell MS is only one folio leaf with writing on both sides.[13] Physically both Yale MSS appear to have been dis-bound from the R gathering of DBL MS, but one must also dispel the possibility that Cromwell MS is the missing leaf of P gathering (P2, following p. 216). In DBL MS margins have been drawn, about one inch in depth, on both right and left edges of pages, in characteristic ink, which has faded to sepia, for pp. 5-85; pp. 86-144 omit margins; pp. 145-216 have light pencilled margins with an occasional horizontal line across each top; but beginning with p. 217 (P3r) and continuing to the end of the volume, right and left margins, a horizontal rule at the bottom of each page, a double rule down each page center, and a horizontal double bar at the top of each page, appear in red ink. Because these red lines appear in "Contentation" MS and because of its length, doubtless that MS was dis-bound from R gathering where it would fit positions of suggested R3-5. Again one must refer to watermarks. R1 and 2 are 'O' leaves; "Contentation", first leaf, is 'O' and therefore could fit the position of R3; "Contentation", second leaf, is watermarked, thus filling the position of R4, conjugate with missing R5, which would have had to have been 'O' as is the third leaf of "Contentation". Remaining leaves of S gathering are all watermarked; no position in this gathering fits "Contentation" MS.

Earlier[14] I had argued that the writing of "Contentation" occurred "After 1676, before Walton's death, 15 December 1683" when I could not be assured that the MS had indeed been once part of DBL MS. The supposed position in R gathering would have the poem succeeding the monogram "W. F." (William FitzHerbert) and the comment "Vivat poeta. | Jan. 14 1666" which appear on p. 244 (Q8v). One might therefore suggest a time of writing as much as ten years earlier than the earliest date (1676) originally set forth.

A study about the Cromwell MS brings up ostensibly heterogeneous sources of information, such as the contents of the disordered gatherings E and F of the DBL MS, publication of a poem in POSO, autobiographical and genealogical information about Cotton, and ownership of the DBL MS

at the time that the poems in R gathering were transcribed; yet all of these elements can be carefully inter-related.

In DBL MS, p. 72 (now F1v, but should be E6v) contains the last lines of the poem "An Ode of Johannes Secundus. To my dear Tutor Mr. Ralph Rawson" and the opening of "Elegy". In the space after the last line of "Rawson" and before the first line of "Elegy" appear these notes:

Perhaps the first, and easiest, conclusion to arrive at is that the poem in POSO, entitled "Elegy", which has no addressee as sub-title, contains the same number of lines, and reproduces, almost verbatim, the text in DBL MS, gathering E, came from an independent MS with no sub-title. Though the Cromwell MS is without doubt the same poem, it is headed "Upon my Lady Mary FitzHerbert by Charles Cotton, Esqr" and shows significant variation from the other two texts. In the following selective chart of readings, it may be assumed that POSO agrees with DBL MS, so slight is the variation between the two:                    

Line(s)	DBL MS	Cromwell MS
1	. . . was I blest . . . .	. . . blest was I . . . .
16	. . . condemned . . . .	. . . condemn'd . . . .
24	. . . beauties . . . .	. . . beauty . . . .
31-34	But . . . spright,	[4 lines missing]
49	Against a love . . . .	And against love . . . .
51	. . . beauties . . . .	. . . beauty . . . .
56	. . . truth,	. . . youth [crossed out, "truth" substituted]
61	Teach her that too . . . .	Tell her that too . . . .
62	Too little to provoke her love	Too little to prevale with her to love

Enough variation is shown by the chart to state that Cromwell MS is not merely an attempt, by re-copying, to create order out of the misordering of the poem in E and F gatherings of the main body of present DBL MS, unless one wants to accuse the writer of Cromwell MS of more than nodding over the task at hand. More credible is that Cromwell MS was copied from an independent MS of the poem. Further one could say that, once Cromwell MS had been written into the bound volume, anyone could have discovered that the poem occurred earlier, and, as a direction to readers, could have added the note "upon the Lady Elizabeth Fitzherbert" and then corrected his mistake by changing "Elizabeth" to "Mary".[19] Some slight evidence may be derived from the fact that the Cromwell MS has "my Lady" and "FitzHerbert" instead of "the Lady" and "Fitzherbert" of the F gathering; the "my" sounds more personal and the family of FitzHerberts most closely associated with Cotton preferred the medial capital "H" within their names.[20] The intimate relationship between the FitzHerbert and the Cromwell and Cotton families lends further support to Turner's supposition that the FitzHerbert family owned the DBL MS at some time in its history.[21] Though one can go far afield in suppositions of this type, it might not be out of order to suppose that a later member of the FitzHerbert family crossed out the F gathering sub-title, leaving only "Made of ye Lady MC" as a seemingly ambiguous enough addressee. Further, one might say that the person who defaced the MS at this point was unaware that a copy of the poem, without its revealing heading, was still in existence; therefore, it seems that, at the time of defacement, the DBL MS had already lost the Cromwell leaf. Otherwise what good would it have done to try to eliminate the former addressee on F1v? These comments may seem more reasonable if one investigates possibilities for identification of "MC". Other comments, once identification has been made, might give rise to probable dating of the poem and its occasion.

The likeliest identification for "MC" is someone named Mary Cromwell, for two women, closely associated with the Cottons and the FitzHerberts, were, at times in their lives, called by that name. The first is Mary, daughter of William Russell of Strensham County, Worcestershire, who married Wingfield, Baron Cromwell and Earl of Ardglass (d. 1668). Close association with these Cromwells is reflected in Cotton's naming one of his sons, his third child, Wingfield (baptized 1662, d. 1663), certainly not a common name and one derived from a surname in the Cromwell family. About 1675, Baroness Mary Russell Cromwell, now a widow, became the second wife

of Charles Cotton, his first wife having died in April 1669. The poem, a love-lament, seems an inappropriate address to the wife of a close friend, and phrases such as "blooming youth" and a "Gather-ye-rosebuds-while-you-may"[22] tone likely would not fit the maturity of a widowed Baroness Cromwell.

The second Mary Cromwell is a sister-in-law to the Baroness, for she is the sister of Wingfield Cromwell, who became Mary Cromwell FitzHerbert, wife to William, the Lord of Tissington Hall, only about a mile away from Cotton's home in Dove Dale. Through the Beresford line, Cotton was already distantly related to the FitzHerberts;[23] by his second marriage, he became more closely related to them. Not only does Mary Cromwell FitzHerbert fit the "MC" of the DBL MS, but she also satisfies the second addressee of the poem, now scored out in the DBL MS, but present in the Cromwell MS. Because of its tone and its initial position in E gathering of DBL MS, it follows that the poem was addressed to Mary Cromwell before her marriage, and, possibly, before Cotton's marriage in 1656 to his first wife, Isabella Hutchinson. Turner (Thesis, pp. 34, 46) discusses the autobiographical content of Cotton's poetry, especially those poems reflecting his courtship of Isabella. All of the Isabella poems which appear in DBL MS precede one entitled "Christmas Day, 1659" (POSO, pp. 175-177, P3r-P4v) as does this "Elegy". The amorous tone of the "Elegy" leads us to believe that, if it was directed to Mary Cromwell, it was probably written about the same time as his poems to Isabella, for either Cotton's or Isabella's family (or both families) disapproved of, and tried to discourage, the courtship; they may even have encouraged his looking elsewhere for a marriage partner. At any rate, the youthful "Elegy" may have been Cotton's lament at rejection of his advances by Mary and a plea for reconsideration. If, indeed, the Cromwell MS was part of DBL MS when William FitzHerbert was still living, he broad-mindedly saw nothing in the poem at which he would take exception, but possibly someone in the family, later, found cause to disrupt association of the poem with Mary Cromwell FitzHerbert, and, by allowing the "MC" to stand, thought that those letters could as easily identify Mary Russell Cromwell Cotton.

The Cromwell MS consists of one leaf only, with the horn watermark. Definitely one could say that this MS could represent any of three leaves, still undiscovered, but believed missing from postulated R gathering (R6, 7, or 8), and also that it was not dis-bound from S gathering, the missing pages of which must have been 'O' leaves. Also, though the missing leaf P2 (following pp. 215-216) was likely watermarked and therefore Cromwell MS could satisfy this position on that score, the stub that remains between P1 and P3 is too jagged, too much paper remains, to fit the well-preserved edges

of Cromwell MS, which is a nearly complete half-sheet showing clearly the holes through which it was originally sewn into the binding. One must settle for a position in R gathering where it originally had its place near to "Contentation" MS, perhaps directly following, in the position of R6.

Only one final statement needs to be made: the Yale-Osborn MSS were indeed once part of DBL MS.

Notes