1679 "H" Factotum (enlarged). A Poem…To His Sacred Majesty…On the Plott.
Written by a Lady of Quality (1/2º. [London]: s.n., 1679). Huntington Library copy.
With kind permission. N.B. The enlargement above is a display or presentation image,
which does not show the small, medial break in the top, horizontal border line;
that small line break is entirely visible in the full presentation of this copy of the poem,
as it was printed in 1679, at the opening of Appendix D, above.

Page 3, A Hue and Cry After the High Court of Injustice. Anon.
London: John Andrews, 1660.
British Library Copy. Thomason Tracts 152:E.1025[8],
with permission (27th July 2005).
Digital image, Early English Books Online,
with permission (5th July 2005).
Enlarged Image of Factotum, following.

Enlarged Image of 1660 "T" Factotum.
(source, cited above; EEBO image 168864:3)

Addendum to Appendix D Annotation
(12th July 2005; local amendments, 8th August 2005)

Note to the Reader: With the author's recent find of a second location of the illustrated, black line woodcut device (factotum) which appears on the 1679 broadsheet poem discussed in Appendix D of this archive, namely in an octavo collection on exemplary women, attributed to a "Tho. Howard" and published by M. [Mary] Wright in 1663, certain refinements and amendments to the above Annotation are now indicated, as follows:

Valuing historical fact and physical evidence, the author of this archive has undertaken in Appendix D to establish something of the precedents of the illustrated ("H") factotum which graces the closely-held presentation copy of the Popish Plot broadside poem (s.n., 1679) addressed to Charles II and "Written by a Lady of Quality," namely the 'Ephelia' poet (very probably Mary Villiers, later Stuart, Duchess of Richmond and Lennox, 1622-1685).

As noted earlier, this sensitive political poem on a religious and political crisis in the Stuart administration offers 17thC print historians a valuable locus of the evolution of a literary text over three separate states of publication: (i) the handsome Brome imprint, without illustration (broadsheet, 1678; this is the parent text of the two subsequent variants in 1679; see Image 1 in this archive); (ii) the closely-held presentation copy of the poem to Charles II, also in broadsheet format, "Printed in the year 1679" and "Written by a Lady of Quality" (author, publisher, printer all unidentified), with one substantive textual variant in the closing line and with an illustrated factotum (digital image, above, courtesy Huntington Library); and (iii) a second published appearance of the poem in 1679, in Female Poems…by Ephelia (8vo; London: Wm Downing for John Courtney, 1679, 1682; Image 2), where it is presented as the lead poem in the collection, without substantive variants to the body text, compared against the 1679 broadsheet version of the poem, and without the (revealing) illustrated factotum which appears on the important presentation broadsheet version of the poem in 1679 (digital image, above). This poem on the Popish Plot crisis, authored ostensibly by a woman, was commercially available on the London market in 1678 (the Brome imprint) and in 1679 (the Courtney imprint); but the 1679 presentation copy of the poem, whose 'smoking gun' factotum surely appears to gesture to the poem's addressee and author, was not on the public market because the factotum suggested the poem's authorship in Lady Mary Villiers. This was a closely-held poem, a special communication between two old friends of the Stuart inner circle: Charles II and his best of childhood chums, the 'brisk and jolly' 'Mall' Villiers.

In the above Annotation to Appendix D, this author demonstrated that the 1679 factotum evidently had been converted or restyled from a much earlier ornament, reasonably a clasping-hands-design device, circa 1625, commemorating the union of Charles I and Henrietta Maria. (The author has not as yet found, in McKerrow, Plomer, Miller, or in the EEBO database, such an ornament; and this is not unusual, as the ornament might have been designed and cut for a privately printed and privileged piece on this new alliance between the Houses of Stuart and Bourbon; indeed, the original pattern could be French, not English. Continued delvings may prove fruitful.) The author also demonstrated in the above Annotation that the 1679 "H" factotum was not unique (not a one-off), but that it had a history of precedents: the device had been used before 1679 by at least one other tradesmen in the Restoration print culture and very probably a few others not as yet identified.

One such location, as shown above, is an anonymous pro-Stuart tract of 1660, A Hue and Cry (Thomason Collection, British Library), on the disposition of the regicides of Charles I, published by John Andrews at the White Lion at Pie Corner, London (see also, Stationers' Register [rpt., 1967], 'Index,' V). Even in the modern digital medium, which can distort the original production quality of a 17thC image, one observes that the presswork on the "T" factotum by Andrews' printer (page 3, Hue and Cry) is not the best quality. The factotum image is quite dark, suggesting heavy inking or an inferior ink; also, the Andrews factotum of 1660 shows signs of age and deterioration, and accidental damage: observe the noses of both crowned figures, as well as the line breaks in the top border line and also at the upper right-hand corner. Nonetheless, the selection of this old factotum of (perhaps) the 1620s is entirely suitable and correct in a publication of 1660 as the content of the 1660 Hue and Cry tract emanates from the reign of Charles I and his consort. This compatibility between text and text illustration is underscored by the inclusion of a full-page frontispiece of Charles I (head and bust), facing the title-page of this 1660 work. Thus, this old factotum of (perhaps) the 1620s does indeed 'work', in context. It is suitable and it serves the text it ornaments.

The author is now pleased to present further information on the history of this same factotum with the recent discovery on 12th July 2005 of a second precedential location of the device in a popular book on exemplary women of ancient Rome (1663; 12th ed., 1700), with apparently a prestigious (though, as yet, unestablished) posthumous authorship in one of 17thC England's best students of Italian history and culture: the great art collector and arts patron, Thomas Howard, 14th Earl of Arundel (1585-1646). Aside from the historical fact of this additional precedent, the new find also invites a fresh set of observations and inferences which would seem to further support the author's original conclusion in 2001 that the 1679 factotum in the Popish Plot broadsheet serves as the 'smoking gun' of the Villiers case.

This second location of the 1679 "H" factotum recently come to light resulting from the author's delvings into a subject only marginally related to the interests of this Appendix D, namely existing records in the Early English Books Online database ("EEBO") for Mary Villiers' three husbands, being Charles, Lord Herbert of Shurland, eldest son and heir of Philip (Herbert), Earl of Pembroke, Wilton House; James Stuart, Duke of Richmond & Lennox, a first cousin to the King; and Colonel Thomas ['Northern Tom'] Howard, whom we shall consider presently. These searches yielded a highly probative result which comments on earlier (pre-1679) uses of this same factotum and also on the author's attribution of the 1679 presentation copy of the Popish Plot broadsheet poem to the 'Ephelia' poet, evidently Mary Villiers, later Stuart, Duchess of Richmond. Ferreted out, quite by chance, was a second and earlier location of the factotum in a much reprinted collection of 1663 (12th ed., London: T. Sabine, 1700; Wing H3011A), namely, The History Of the Seven Wise Mistrisses of Rome…the Wisdom of Seven Wise Women displayed, to the wonder of their own Nation, and the Admiration of all the World (8vo; London: M. Wright at the King's-Head in the Old Bailey, 1663; [190 pp]; with several woodcuts; ESTC R4376; Wing H3008, Reel position 107/20). (No bibliographical data exists, to date, suggesting that the 1663 Wright imprint was a common reprint of an earlier issue of Howard's book, unless of course the book was previously published anonymously and under a different title.) The Seven Wise Mistrisses is a compendium of exemplary tales, "extracted and gathered" by the volume's (signed) author, "Tho. Howard," on selected female paradigms of ancient Roman history; the collection opens with a chapter on Lucretius (Lucretia), "the Empress" of all wise women and the author's (Thomas Howard's) model of the virtuous wife. (For several handsome images of this Classical heroine, see http://www.charlise.com/lucretia.html). Here is a digital copy of the page on which the 1663 "S" factotum appears, followed by an enlarged image of this woodcut device:

Thomas Howard's Seven Wise Mistrisses . . .
London: M[ary] Wright, King's Head, Old Bailey, 1663. Signature B.
Huntington Library Copy, RB 55251. With gracious permission, 3rd August 2005.
Digital Copy of this page, Early English Books Online / ProQuest.
With gracious permission, 13th July 2005.

Enlarged Image of 1663 “S” Factotum
Seven Wise Mistrisses by Thomas Howard (London, 1663)

This new piece of research is remarkable on several grounds:

(1) Figural Presentation: With the recent location of this particular factotum in Thomas Howard's book of 1663, we now have further factual information on the history and use of this device, whose uses (according to the author's current research) date to 1660, 1663, and 1679. Printers' ornaments often had a very long life; that this factotum (or even close variants thereof) was selected by printers over nearly two decades is not unusual. By 1679, the factotum surely had seen better days; it had weathered some twenty years of (documentable) use by various printers, as well as the London plague and the Great Fire of London. Judging from its appearance in 1663, in Howard's book, the device clearly bore signs of deterioration. When it was selected in 1679, for a presentation copy of a poem to Charles II, the block's surface evidently received a few alterations and enhancements to suit the occasion. Here are enlarged-format digital images of the factotum's three representations, to date, each apparently in advancing states of deterioration or strategic alteration by the woodcutter, who was performing his craft at the behest of higher powers, powers associated with the Stuart inner circle (one must keen to the intrigue of all o' that!):

1660, Hue and Cry		1663, Seven Mistrisses		1679, Popish Plot brs.

Comparing the 1660 Hue and Cry factotum and its later incarnation in 1663, the 1663 representation is more sharply defined, owing mostly to better presswork or machining (i.e., less heavy inking). Also Mary Wright's (unidentified) printer of the Seven Mistrisses in 1663 may have directed the woodcutter to make a few slight alterations to the surface of the factotum's block; e.g., the design of the King's crown is slightly different; the two stems of the English rose appear to be a bit longer and also straighter; the crowned woman figure displays a slightly longer neck and less heavily inked hair; the angle of her head inclines more to the (viewer's) left; and her cleavage is minimized.

Comparing the 1663 factotum with its re-appearance in 1679, on the presentation copy of a poem to Charles II, the factotum apparently underwent further alterations. (Can age, decay, machining, and different presswork account for all of these many different variables?) Two essential and distinguishing emendments appear to have been made to the block in 1679. With regard to the King figure, as represented in the 1679 device, the moustache is minimized to align with that of the poem's addressee and subject, Charles II; portrait images which display his facial hair are supplied in links, above, in the Annotation. (Other incidental changes: the design of the King's crown in the 1679 image is slightly different; the arched left eyebrow [viewer's left] is no longer visible, doubtless a sign of wear or damage, not an aesthetic decision, surely; and the outline and volume of the King's hair, to the left of the royal face [viewer's left], has been modified.) Notably, the King figure's beard was never inked in any of the three representations of the factotum; in the 1679 display, the white area which in 1660 and in 1663 suggested the beard of Charles I, now suggests the white cravat typically seen in portraits of Charles II, thus making this old and dated factotum more appropriate to the current monarch in 1679, style of dress notwithstanding. (For images of the white cravat in most portraits of Charles II, see the link in the Annotation, above, to the National Portrait Gallery website).

With regard to the crowned woman figure in the 1679 representation of the factotum, one notices that the lighter tonal effects (shading) of her hair do not align with the decidedly darker, brunette hair tones of Henrietta Maria in the 1660 and 1663 factota. The representation of the hair in 1679 visibly suggests lighter hair tones, more in keeping with those of the poem's author, the blond-red-haired Mary Villiers. (Other incidental changes: the woman figure's cleavage is further minimized; her face is much improved, with prior damage to the nose and mouth slightly repaired; and the angle of the woman's crown is slightly different.) Clearly, this earlier factotum of 1663 had been prepared for reuse in 1679 with a measure of care and appropriateness. (A reproduction or recutting of the block in 1679 is also a possibility, though not too likely, given the haste of Popish Plot publication in the late 1670s.)

Mary Wright was the last known and recorded user of this factotum -- or of a factotum of this same design -- in 1663; and her printer of choice, judging from Wright's records in the EEBO, was Ralph Wood; e.g., Bunyan, A Few Sighs (1658); Cawdrey, The Account Audited (1658); Pererius, The Astrologer (1661); and Donne's Satyr… Printed by R.W. … [very probably Ralph Wood], (1662). Whether she or one of her several kin in the Restoration print trade were the publisher of this 1679 broadsheet poem to Charles II, engaging again Ralph Wood as printer or one of his kin in the trade, must remain speculative at present. Regardless, there is the historical fact now established of Wright's printer in 1663 (and also John Andrews' printer, in 1660) as having had access to this device.

With regard to the incorrect formatting of line 5 in the 1679 presentation copy of the Popish Plot broadsheet ("Sureall" [i.e., "Sure all"] in line 5 should align with "Shed," in line 6; see digital copy of the poem, above), this conspicuous blemish on an otherwise attractively designed broadsheet poem was either a careless compositor and proofing error or, given the shape and relatively large size of this important space in the poem, a different device altogether was originally planned, such as a large decorative initial "H" (incipit: "HAILE Mighty Prince! ..."): note the unused space below the poem's factotum. In any case, the selection in 1679 of an available factotum which depicted a Stuart king and a pretty crowned lady served the ends and the special audience of this particular presentation version of the poem; with its few amendments, chiefly the (minimized) moustache of the King figure and the (lighter) hair tones of the crowned woman figure, the factotum suggested the poem's two principals: Charles II and Lady Mary Villiers in her ducal coronet.

(2) Authorship: Returning to the new find, namely the appearance of the 1679 factotum in the 1663 Seven Wise Mistrisses, the authorship of this 1663 book suggests two attractive candidates: both are named Thomas Howard. The epistle dedicatory is signed "Tho. Howard"; and the author identifies himself in his Note to the Reader as the compiler of the volume's many tales of exemplary women. The more sensible candidate for the book's authorship is Thomas (Howard), Earl Arundel (1585-1646), as mentioned above, a learned and broadly-traveled individual with special interests in Roman history and Italian visual culture (R Malcolm Smuts, Oxford DNB [2004]), thus making the 1663 book a posthumous publication. Arundel was familiarly the 'father of Vertue in England,' and virtue (especially as displayed by certain women in Ancient Roman history) is indeed the overarching theme of "Tho. Howard"'s Note to the Reader in this 1663 compendium. Mary Wright's (or her printer's) choice of the earlier factotum, displaying Charles I and Henrietta Maria, was not inappropriate in a (posthumous) book of 1663 as its author was a prominent member of that earlier generation of Stuarts. This particular choice in factotum also presses a parallel comparison between Arundel's English queen, being the Henrietta Maria figure of the factotum, and the Roman model of exemplary wives, namely the Empress Lucretia, whose chapter this factotum ornaments.

A second candidate for the authorship of the Seven Wise Mistrisses by this "Tho. Howard" is none other than Colonel 'Northern Tom' Howard (d. 1678), lieutenant of the yeomen of the guard, younger brother of Charles Howard, first Earl of Carlisle, and husband in 1664 of Lady Mary Villiers. (The amusing convergence of these related facts may be a delicious coincidence or something rather new and exciting.) As documented earlier in this archive, the couple was married in a clandestine ceremony in 1664. Although Mary Villiers' 'Tom' Howard was a famous libertine and fatal duelist prior to his amour and eventual marriage to the then-widowed Mary (Stuart née Villiers), Duchess of Richmond, the EEBO does include a few (literary) records by a Thomas Howard at this time, including the Seven Wise Mistrisses, which reasonably could have emanated from this third husband of Mary Villiers, such as (i) a ballad, An Old Song of the Old Courtier of the Kings… (London: F. Coles, 1670; Wing H3011; 1 sheet; signed at the end of the lyric, "Written by T. Howard, Gent."); and (ii) An Elegy on the Death of the most Illustrious Prince [Henry, Duke of Gloucester, 1640-1660], third Brother to our most Gracious Sovereigne Charles the Second … (London: W. Gilberson, 1660; Wing H3007; 1 sheet), signed, "Tho. Howard". The 1663 Wright imprint, the Seven Wise Mistrisses, carries the identical author signature: "Tho. Howard." The six Howards profiled in both the old and the new DNB were not flourishing when The History of …the Seven Wise Mistrisses was published by Mary Wright in 1663; 'Northern Tom' Howard was indeed alive and flourishing at this time, and some of these (catalogued) literary pieces by a "Tho. Howard", especially the Stuart Elegy and the Stuart courtier's Old Song, might be said to coincide with his tastes and political allegiances.

While current bibliographical data on the authorship of the Seven Wise Mistrisses, in the OCLC, the EEBO, and the ESTC, are sparse ("17th/18th century, a writer of Roman stories"), there is no denying the obvious coincidence of the publication date of this very "female" and matrimonial book of 1663 by a Thomas Howard -- surely a book to please any new wife -- and Colonel Thomas Howard's marriage (1664) to Mary Villiers (see D'Aulnoy, Memoirs of the Court of England [Paris, 1695; English ed., 1913], pp 234-6, 241-2, passim; Freda Hast, Oxford DNB 2004). There is also the fact that Thomas Howard, 14th Earl of Arundel, an individual "preoccupied with genealogy and titles of nobility" (Smuts, ODNB, as referenced above), did not typically identify himself in print as merely "Tho. Howard"; he is "Thomas Earle of Arundell" (Laws and Ordinances of Warre [Newcastle: Robert Baker, 1639]); or "Arundell and Surrey; Marshall" (The True Copy of a Letter Sent from Thomas, Earl of Arundell…to Mr Pym [London: John Thomas, 1641]); or, "Thomas Arundell" (The Confession and Conversion of…Sinners (London: J. Hayes, 1662; Sig B). Finally, had the Seven Wise Mistrisses been a posthumous publication of the pre-eminent Earl of Arundel, would not Mary Wright, Arundel's posthumous publisher in 1663, have exploited this impressive new property of hers on the book's title-page or in a note to the reader? It is difficult to believe that a volume of such pedigree and popularity (12 printings alone in the 17thC, being the 37-year time span 1663-1700) would have gone uncatalogued these three centuries as the work of Thomas (Howard), Earl of Arundel, a rather finely documented figure in English politics and culture. Yet he does seem to be the more satisfying candidate for the authorship of the Seven Wise Mistrisses, owing to his broad ties to Rome and to Italian history, and his recorded writerly leanings toward the didactic.

In any case, the choice of this particular factotum (or style of factotum) for the 1679 presentation copy of the Popish Plot broadsheet poem to Charles II certainly links this anonymous poem of 1679 to the Howard book of 1663 and to the Howard name. In 1679, the 'Ephelia' poet, very probably Mary Villiers, had been a Howard (Mary, Lady Howard) from 1664 until 'Tom' Howard's death in 1678. The retention and use of her (public) ducal designation, "Duchess of Richmond and Lennox," was a special privilege granted her by the Crown after the death of her second husband, James Stuart, in 1655.

(3) Image-Text Compatibility: The Seven Wise Mistrisses (1663) by "Tho. Howard", no matter which Thomas Howard was the author, surely intersects with the explicitly feminist tastes of Colonel Thomas Howard's bride at this time, Mary Villiers, the author's candidate for the 'Ephelia' poet; for this is a book which praises wise women, a book indeed published and sold by a woman: Mary Wright, the "M. Wright" of the book's imprint, a fact which would have pleased a reader of Mary Villiers' feminist leanings. (For documentation on Mary Wright as the publisher of the Howard volume, see Edward Arber's Stationers' Register [London, 1913; rpt., Peter Smith, Gloucester, MA., 1967], II:322, "10th of April 1663"; author's copy.)

Regardless of these contestable and perceived differences in the appearance of this factotum (or variants thereof) in 1660, 1663, and 1679, it is the contextual, allusive resonance of the two figures in the 1679 factotum which confers upon this particular device a special role in the closely held poem to Charles II on the Popish Plot. And it is this 1679 factotum, with its signification in the poem's author, its 'Lady of Quality' (Mary, Duchess of Richmond), which makes the authorial statement in this complex situation in 17th-century English printing history. Mindful that this presentation copy of a sensitive political poem to Charles II on the Popish Plot was printed for a small, élite readership, it is entirely reasonable to infer that the King figure in the 1679 "H" factotum (he of the modified moustache) and the attractive, vivacious woman figure in the 1679 factotum (she of the lighter hair tones) were seen and 'read' by their special readership in 1679 as none other than Charles II and the 'brisk and jolly' Duchess of Richmond. . In this densely formatted sheet of printed text, it is the image (the illustrated factotum) which draws attention: the eye of the reader engages initially with image, not text. Contemporary readers of this poem already saw this broadsheet, in its original state, in 1678; they already were familiar with the title's large, dramatic type size. What would have struck them as new and interesting would have been the image which was newly added to the text. What selected Court readers of this poem (reasonably) saw in that image were two 'miniature' figures which they would have recognized from first-hand acquaintance. Styles of dress, facial hair, and printers' inking practices notwithstanding, the two figures in the 1679 "H" factotum were intended to represent them: the poem's royal addressee, Charles II, and the poem's highly-placed "Lady of Quality," Duchess Mary in her ducal coronet.

This second, earlier location of the 1679 factotum, namely in the Wright imprint of 1663 (Howard's Wise Mistrisses) was mentioned via an e-mail message to ESTC/NA on July 12th, 2005. Further information will duly be posted to this Addendum as additional information and thus refinements come to hand. May the reader forgive the overbearing length and detail in this lengthy Annotation and Addendum; what appeared to be a rather uncomplex situation in 2001 was revisited in 2005. Owing to the wise comments of many good colleagues, this first investigation into some of the threads in this busy tapestry has been constructive: new historical facts have come to light and some reasonable inferences have been tendered on an engaging situation in late-17thC English printing history.