A series of old-spelling, SGML-encoded editions
of early individual copies of English Renaissance books and manuscripts,
and of plain transcriptions of such works,
published on the World Wide Web as a free resource for students of the period.

 

From A Direction for the English Traviller By which he Shal be inabled to Coast about all England and Wales. London: Mathew Simons, 1635. STC 10420. Amsterdam and New York: Da Capo Press / Theatrvm Orbis Terrarvm Ltd., 1969.

GENERAL EDITOR: Ian Lancashire

PUBLISHER: Web Development Group
University of Toronto Library
1997

Editions 2.1

EDMUND COOTE
THE ENGLISH SCHOOLE-MAISTER (1596)

EDITED BY

Ian Lancashire

co-edited by
Linda Hutjens
Brent Nelson
Robert Whalen
Tanya Wood

with data-entry assistance by
Adam Gilders
Gretchen Mullin
Shannon Robinson
Michael Saenger
Isobel Stockdale

Members of ENG 9002S (Bibliography II: 1485-1660) 1997
Department of English
University of Toronto

© 1997 Ian Lancashire

All rights reserved. This publication, however, may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted electronically or otherwise, without the prior written permission of the publisher as long as the text has not been changed in any way.

ISBN 1-896016-00-6
MADE IN CANADA

Table of Contents

• Preface
• 1. Edition
• 2. Life of Edmund Coote (by Linda Hutjens)
• 3. Printing History (by Brent Nelson)
• 4. Coote's Contribution to English
• 5. Edmund Coote and the OED (by Robert Whalen)
• 6. Encoding
  
• Notes
• Bibliography (by Tanya Wood, Linda Hutjens, Brent Nelson, and the editor)
• Appendix 1: Tag and Character Sets
• Appendix 2: Emendations to Text
• Text

Preface

This is the first non-facsimile edition of Coote's book and is based on the Scolar Press facsimile edited by R. C. Alston from the two surviving copies in the British Library and Trinity College Dublin. Appendix 2 lists, for the first time, typographical errors. Mistakes by philologists in reading Coote's work, Bror Danielsson says, "show how important it is to establish the original or the correct reading before proceeding to theorizing" (1960, 230). This edition has been proofread three times. If any errors remain, I am responsible for them and would be glad to see them corrected.

Our brief introduction summarizes what is known about Coote's life, his book, and the tradition from which it emerged. Linda Hutjens suggests several reasons--ones unrelated to Coote's ability--why he was forced to resign as Bury schoolmaster shortly after the book was published. Brent Nelson gives new information on how many times The English Schoole-maister was published up into the eighteenth century. I discuss why Coote's dictionary may be more worthy of respect than scholars have thought.

This is not intended to be a full critical edition. No new attempt has been made to analyse the pronunciation or spelling Coote taught. Because the 1596 edition is the only one to appear in his lifetime, textual variants have not been collected from the later extant reprints, which appear to have begun in 1614. Full commentary and annotation, a study of sources, and an account of Coote's methods and knowledge of Early Modern English certainly warrant doing but are beyond the scope of this series.

I am grateful to Trinity College Dublin, the British Library, and Scolar Press for allowing the reproduction of the original pages of Coote's book.

I. L.
Etobicoke / November 1, 1997

1. Edition

2. Life of Edmund Coote (?1562-1610) (by Linda Hutjens)

On June 5, 1596, Coote was elected head-master of the Free Grammar School of King Edward VI of Bury St. Edmunds, Suffolk, following the resignation of John Wright, M.A., who had held the position for more than twelve years (Danielsson 1960, 232-3, 239-240; Page, 2: 316). Less than seven months after assuming the headmastership, Coote published The English Schoole-maister, which was entered in the Stationers' Register on December 18, 1596. The first edition is dated 1596, so it was probably issued by March 25th.

The book teaches students of all ages to read and write in English and promises that "he which hath this booke only,needeth buy no other to make him {fi}t, from his letters, vnto the Grammar |schoole, for an apprenti|se, or any other his owne priuate v|se, |so farre as concerneth Engli{|sh}" (title-page). Coote's projected audience may remind us of his own modest background and the apparent illiteracy of his father.⁴ Coote was evidently concerned about public education: "... it is lamentable to |see into what ignorant handling |sillie little children chaunce, which {|sh}ould at the {fi}r{|st} bee mo{|st} skilfully grounded,which is the only cau|se of |such wofull ignorance in |so many men and women, that cannot write without great error one |sentence of true Engli{|sh} ..." (3.110-114). Coote claims to have proven his pedagogical system in practice: "If thou thinke me either for hardnes of rule, or length of matter, vnfit for children : plentifull experience in very young ones, (beleeue him that hath tryed)doth dayly confute thee" (30.14-16; cf. 5.2.3.108-115; and the spirit of 3.78-80). This "plentifull experience" as an English teacher may have occurred between 1583 and 1596. On the other hand, a passage from one of his embedded dialogues seems to register the frustration of a Latin instructor with ill-grounded students (5.2.6.112-115 and marginal note).

The title page of Coote's book proclaims it "Deui|sed ... by Edmond Coote Mai{|st}er of the Free-|schoole in Bury S. Edmond." We may therefore wonder why, on May 18, 1597, Coote resigned from this prestigious position after only eleven months of service. His notice of resignation unusually includes a formulaic protestation that he was not resigning under pressure, which leads two modern scholars to assume that the resignation was probably "an enforced one" (Page, 317; cf. Danielsson 1960, 233, 240). Nicholas Martyn, M.A., was also ready to replace Coote on the same day, further suggesting that the governors anticipated the vacancy. The reasons for Coote's sudden resignation remain unknown, although one scholar notes in passing that the signature of Coote's successor is "much superior in its scholarliness to that of his predecessor" (Page, 317).

Research into the conditions of Coote's employment may provide further clues. Coote was hired at the "will and pleasure of the governors, which seeme the most agreable to the true intent and meanynge of the king's lettres patentes" (Page, 316). The school's Statutes of 1550 suggest diverse motivations for resignation; for example, Article 62, "The masters are not to keep a family under the school roofs, nor have beds there; let women, as deadly pests, be kept away."⁵ School regulations also explicitly forbade instruction in basic English literacy, a standard requirement for admission to grammar schools in England: "Let them seek elsewhere the ability to read and write. Let ours [? our masters] give nothing but the rules of grammar and the learning of the Latin and Greek tongue."⁶ Coote's authorship of The English Schoole-maister may have embarrassed the governors of a school which prided itself on exclusive instruction in classical languages.⁷ Indeed, Coote hints in his preface that such a work was hardly expected from one in his position: "I hope thou vnder{|st}ande{|st} my purpo|se, and {|si}ngle heart for thy good: which if I {fi}nde thou accepte{|st}, I may peraduenture hereafter proceede in my cour|se for the ea{|si}e and |speedie attayning the learned languages, an argument which as it is more pertinent to my profe|ssion, |so might it rather be expected from me then this poore pamphlet"(3.144-149). Nothing further is known of Coote's projected sequel.

Little is known of Coote's life after this resignation. We do know that on October 16, 1607, "Samuell the sonne of Edmund Coote Schoolem[aste]r" was baptized in Hunsdon, North Ware, in eastern Hertfordshire. Coote apparently spent his final years as a schoolmaster there. On February 13, 1609/10, both "Edmon Cooutt Gentellman / and Barbary his Wif" were buried in Sawbridgeworth, an adjacent parish.⁸ Years later, John Brinsley, gratefully recalling his former schoolmasters, mentions "that painefull, Maister Coote, of Hunsden ... now with the Lord."⁹ Brinsley, who had become an educational writer himself, advises all aspirants to Grammar school to read "The English schoolemaister, of that honest and painfull Maister Coote."¹⁰ Modern scholars are now beginning to appreciate Coote's contributions to English lexicography, pronunciation and spelling reform. Perhaps, with Brinsley, we should also remember Coote's contribution to English literacy and public education in seventeenth-century England.

3. Printing History (by Brent Nelson)

The format of the book is as follows: 4°: A-N4 [$3 signed (-A1,-N3)], 52 leaves, pp. i-viii, 1-94, 95-6 (misprinting "23" as "24").

Between 1596 and 1737, The English Schoole-maister went through over sixty-four printings and various printers, most of which were commissioned by the Stationer's Company. There is some confusion in the publication information provided on the title pages of the various editions (not to mention some discrepancies between Alston's, Pollard and Redgrave's, and Robinson's bibliographies). In his prefatory note to his 1968 facsimile edition, R. C. Alston cites 1737 as the 54th edition based on the evidence of its title-page; this despite his note in A Bibliography of the English Language indicating that the claim of the 1640 edition of being the 18th imprint--which set the precedent for the numbering of subsequent editions--is erroneous. The title page of the 1636 edition indicates that it is the 25th printing, which is supported by previous extant copies that claim to be the 15th, 17th, 18th and 24th imprints. This would suggest that "18th" in 1640 is a typographical error which should read "28th." Therefore, the 54th imprint of 1737 would actually be the 64th.

Of these sixty-four editions, over half (thirty-five) are extant, and another six have been confirmed by secondary sources. In total, then, forty-one, or 64% of the sixty-four editions, are verifiable. Although relatively few pre-1640 imprints are extant (a 33% survival rate), the frequency of impressions in this period (based on the testimony of existing title-pages) establishes a fairly consistent pattern of one reprint every one to two years that continues into the 1680's. While this might seem an incredible rate of production, there is evidence that Coote's book was popular enough in 1602 to have publishers tripping over each other to meet the demand. In June 28 of that year a decision was entered in the Records of the Court of the Stationers' Company which found both Dexter and Cuthbert Burby guilty of printing their respective 1602 editions without the Company's permission, for which both were fined (Greg and Boswell, 88). That neither of these editions is extant gives some credence to the claims of the pre-1640 title-pages, suggesting that there may very well have been several other editions which have likewise become lost.

Taking the title pages at their word, we might formulate a scenario which would explain this low survival rate based on how the book was used.¹¹ It seems that Coote's publishers issued their editions to meet the periodic needs of educators, and perhaps their students. The fair frequency of impressions indicates that there was a persistent cycle of demand for its publication, perhaps because teachers were assigning Coote to their students as a textbook. We know that both Charles Hoole and John Brinsley recommended the use of Coote's text in the Petty Schools (Watson 177).¹²There is another notable pattern in the way the book was published that suggests it may have been used year after year in the schools. For two extended periods (1614-1638 and 1655-1687), several editions in sequence were reset to match exactly the page divisions of previous editions, perhaps so that pagination would be consistent for easy classroom reference.¹³ (Despite the consistent format and page divisions, small variants do occur, indicating that each edition was indeed a new impression and not simply a re-packaging of left-over leaves.) Given such an audience and application for this book, a low survival rate is not at all surprising.

There have been two editions since 1737, both based on the text of 1596. In 1968 Scolar Press issued a facsimile of the Trinity College copy, to which the editor appended pages 2-6 (which were imperfect in Trinity) from the British Museum copy. Five years earlier, in 1963, William R. Hart completed a critical edition for his University of Michigan doctoral dissertation, which is itself a facsimile reproduction of 1596. Hart bases his edition on the British Library copy and uses the Trinity College copy to supply corrections (these are the same copies that are used in the Scolar edition, upon which the present edition is based). As Hart states in his dissertation abstract, making Coote's text available to the modern reader was secondary to his purpose of studying Coote's place in Elizabethan elementary education, which he does in his three introductory chapters (DAI 28:1397A).

4. Coote's Contribution to English (Ian Lancashire)

Coote has aimed at codifying and methodizing petty-school practice, as grammar-school practice had within limits been codified and methodized. The wide and continued use of his work shows that it met a considerable measure of success. (26)

The seventeenth- and eighteenth-century spelling books follow closely the model provided by Coote, and even men like Hodges, Butler, and Cooper adopt ideas from him. (1960, 229)

Coote was plainly indebted to the English hornbook and A. B. C. for much of the content of his book. The petty-school instructional manuals included alphabetic font styles, guidance on spelling, a catechism, and a collection of prayers for daily use. Coote retains this structure, moving the student from single letters and rigorous tables of two-letter, three-letter, etc. combinations permitted (and not permitted) in English through to original, increasingly complex prose and verse texts (B2v, B4r, C2r, C2v) that illustrate the rules he derived from his materials. The ensuing teacher-student dialogue shows how Coote's instruction can be tested in the classroom. Then the catechism and daily prayers give students opportunities to apply their verbal knowledge in the most important way known to the Renaissance: understanding their relationship to God by reading, uttering, and listening to prayers and the Bible.

In contrast, the last sections are comparatively original. Numeration was a subject in Clement's petty-school textbook (pp. 63-71) but Coote's chronology--which again applies English to an understanding of God's world as revealed in the Bible and as supplemented by pagan authors--and Coote's dictionary are quite new (Baldwin 27). Perhaps Coote took to heart William Kempe's remark, in his treatise of education, that "some harde words" (F3r-F3v) could still pose difficulty for those who get as far as learning their catechism. In any event, Coote did what many others had not done (in complaining about the problem): he excerpted words from Mulcaster's 8,000-item list of English words, added terms of his own, and devised explanations for them all.¹⁴

Scholars of Renaissance English lexicography have left Coote in the shadow of his successor Robert Cawdrey, who in 1604 republished 87% of Coote's dictionary of 1680 words, supplemented by 860 more word-entries of his own, in a slim separate volume (Starnes and Noyes, 12-19). At the same time, modern historical lexicographers have dismissed Coote's lexicon as one of several "spelling lists" (Schäfer 1989, 2) and argued that he took all his matter from Mulcaster's list in 1582. Although Coote certainly made his selection primarily from Mulcaster, it was Coote's decision to select only those English "hard" words (generally, ones of French, Greek, or Latin origin) that ordinary folk might need and to exclude the vocabulary that they certainly would already possess. Thus Coote's dictionary is useful evidence for what Shakespeare and his contemporaries might have accepted as "basic English." Coote was also the first person to devise a form of English explanation for English words. Until 1596, the only dictionaries available in England were bilingual ones. Kempe expressed a common sentiment among educators at this time--that English came naturally.

The Grammar ... needeth not to be wholly taught in our owne language. For by a naturall vse we learne the inflexion of words together, with the varietie of their accidentall significations .... So likewise by the same vse is learned the framing of words together in speach ... (F2r)

A reading of Coote's hard-word explanations shows that he used the bilingual dictionary as a model for what we now call definitions. In the Renaissance, only things were "defined" (in so-called "logical" definitions), never words, which functioned mainly as signs pointing to or signifying things, the realia of thought and experience. The only explanations possible for words that native speakers did not understand were either an equivalent or corresponding word or phrase, or an etymology. Coote used code letters--"g" or "gr" for Greek, "*" for French-- to label the source language, but he decided, against scholarly habit (see, for example, the work of John Minsheu), that the post-lemmatic part of his word-entries should consist of simple equivalent expressions, without inflectional or grammatical information or formal etymology. No where did Coote discuss the things to which words referred. He did not fill word-entries with little essays about the world around him. From the late seventeenth century, English dictionaries increasingly depended on referential definitions of this type. These transfer the "logical definition" of the thing signified by a word to that word in its dictionary word-entry. Since Samuel Johnson's great dictionary, English speakers have conceived of words as having a conceptual identity comparable to that of the things they refer to. Coote teaches us that the Renaissance regarded words as just a convenient way of speaking about something else (thought and experience), rather than about a verbal universe that paralleled the world to which it referred. Words named things (D1r), just as proper names functioned as signs for people and places. The Renaissance used words to serve their interests in the world rather than studying the world through words.

Coote describes the business of explanation as "interpretation" (A2v). Of the relationship between the headword for an entry, and the words of explanation following it, Coote says: "The word adioyned vnto it is euer in Engli{|sh}, and is the interpreter of it in a more familiar Engli{|sh} word" (29.1.16-18). He later explains the hard word "interpretor" to mean the same as "expounder" (29.2.886); and "expound" is used to explain the word "con{|st}rue" (29.2.404). The verb "expound"--which Coote accepts as familiar to his readers and in need of no explanation (it is not in his hard-word lexicon)-- is documented in the Oxford English Dictionary in citations from 1377 to 1653 as follows:

2. To explain, interpret.
....
† d. To give the meaning of (a word or name); also, to give a version of in another language; to translate. Obs.

5. Edmund Coote and the OED (by Robert Whalen)

Jürgen Schäfer's recent and authoritative survey of sixteenth- and seventeenth-century glossaries goes some way in rectifying Coote's absence from the OED; antedatings such as 'ab{|st}ra{ct}' ('abbreuiat' or '{|sh}orten', 29.2.23, 5), 'enormious' ('out of |square', 29.2.632), 'presbyterie' ('Elder{|sh}ip', 29.2.1145), and fresh semantic insights into words like 'accurate' ('cunning', 29.2.34), 'diuternitie' ('dailine{|s|s}e', 29.2.589) and 'seque{st}er' ('put to an indi{ff}erent man', 29.2.1300-01), constitute a valuable addition to the dictionary. But Schäfer omits many other words for which Coote's 'interpretations' or 'expoundings' qualify variously as both antedatings and semantic nuances as yet not documented. Moreover, by restricting his census to the Table, Schäfer fails to take into account Coote's actual use of the language so enthusiastically celebrated elsewhere in The English Schoole-maister, thus overlooking several items not afforded by the Table alone.

The following supplement is an attempt to recognize more fully Edmund Coote's contribution to our understanding of the Early Modern English lexicon. In addition to antedatings, semantic additions and non-registered words we have included several examples of variant spellings which either predate or are altogether absent from the OED; in doing so, we follow the schoolmaster himself, who in his 'Preface' tells us, "yea, often I write the |same word diuer{|sl}y (if it be v|sed indifferently) the better to acquaint thee with any kinde of writing" (3.60-62). We have also retained for those examples drawn from the Table Coote's use of 'Romain' (i.e., black-letter) and 'Italike' type fonts.

If there are perhaps "many faults e|scaped"--or at least a few missed opportunities; like Coote, we "hope the learned will with fauour |see [our] purpo|se. And the vnskilfull reape the fruite, vntill oportunitie may |serue to reforme it" (30.7-9).

• accent: tune (29.2.25). Under OED 1, "prominence given to one syllable in a word," the earliest citation equating 'accent' and 'tune' is from 1637.

• anathema, maranatha: accursed (29.2.98, 939). Schäfer cites Heydon (1603) for 'anathema'. Earliest OED citation for 'maranatha' is from Cawdrey (1604).

• appeach: accurse (29.2.124). OED has "to accuse" or "bring charges against," but nothing like 'accurse'. Furthermore, OED 'accurse' has nothing approximating "to accuse."

• biere: "to carry a dead corps" (29.2.229). OED does not recognize verbal form of 'bier' (burial cot). The word in Coote's Table is italicized and thus, according to his own stipulation, one of several "French words made Engli{|sh}" (L1r).

• bullace bullase bulleis: "|some write . . . bullace bulla|se, some bulleis" (5.2.55-57). OED 's 'wild plum' or tree bearing the same cites 1629 and 1664 variant spellings 'bulleis' and 'bullace', respectively. Var. sp. 'bullase' is not recognized.

• chambering: lightnes (29.2.297). Though 'lewdness' is semantically related to 'lightnes' and forms an earlier association with 'chambering', the explicit connection drawn by Coote antedates the 1613 citation under OED 'chambering', 2a.

• cnicus: ba{|st}ard |sa{ff}ron (5.2.5.146). Though there are numerous entries in the OED connecting 'cnicus' with thistle-type plants, Coote's 'expounding' is not recognized. It should be noted, however, that 'cnicus ' follows 'pneuma' in Coote's discussion of exceptional consonant combinations and, like 'pneuma ', is italicized. Its status as an English word is perhaps questionable. (See below, 'pneuma ').

• con|scent: harmony (28.2.393). Not registered. If a printing error is involved here, 'con|sent' may be ruled out for it precedes 'con|scent' in Coote's Table (con|sent: agreement).

• di|sparagement: inequalitie of birth (29.2.532-33). OED 1 comes closest with 'Marriage to one of inferior rank'; Coote's meaning is not specifically recognized.

• di|spen|se: |set free (29.2.534). Earliest citation under OED 6b. is from 1627.

• enarration, narration: declaration (29.2.622, 1002). Though all three words in the OED have definitions approximating 'exposition' and 'description', explicit connection is never established.

• genero{|si}tie, gentilitie: gentrie (29.2.745-46). For "generosity: gentry," Schäfer cites Bullokar (1616), post-dating Coote by two decades. OED 1b. recognizes collective nominal definition for 'gentility', but 'generosity' is limited to the function of abstract noun or attribute. Because the OED also allows both abstract and concrete definitions for 'gentry' contemporary with Coote, it is difficult to determine precisely the latter's intent.

• gittron (5.2.5.27). Var. sp. of 'gittern' ("stringed lute" or "cithern") antedates OED citation of 1613.

• intere|st: loane (29.2.881). OED has only "the relation of" or "condition of" being invested in some person or enterprise. Given that the OED substantive 'loan' has no equivalent definition, i.e., that describing a relation or condition of lending, it is perhaps safe to assume that in Coote both 'intere|st' and 'loane' refer to the object lended, whether money, property, title, etc.

• limitation: appointment (29.2.920). Schäfer cites Rastell (1598).

• non|suit: not following (29.2.1014). Schäfer (vol. 2) cites Cawdrey (1604) as a new contribution, even though recognizing Coote in his census (vol. 1). Oddly, Schäfer's census erroneously categorizes the Coote citation as a substantive even though Cawdrey's verbatim borrowing from Coote is properly categorized (Schäfer vol. 2) as adjectival.

• period: "Then marke how I haue diuided the yeares of the world into {fi}ue parts, called {fi}ue periods ..." (28.4-5). Earliest citation under OED 'period', I.2a., 'unit in chronology', is from 1613.

• pneuma : "pneuma  a |spirit, or breth" (5.2.5.145-46). Earliest OED citation is, surprisingly, from 1884. Italicized, 'pneuma ' is said by Coote to be "borowed from the Grecians." Coote does not include 'pneuma ' in the Table, though other Greek borrowings are listed there -- 'words borrowed of the Gr{'ee}ke, as hypocrite,myrrhe, my{|st}icall,all which words you {|sh}all {fi}nde in the table' (E3r). That such words are not italicized only reinforces the as yet exotic status of 'pneuma'. However, discussion at this point in The English Schoole-maister  concernss proper English orthography, wherein 'pneuma' is one of several examples qualifying rules about the conjunction of certain consonants. Moreover, that 'pneuma' is absent from the Table may just as well suggest its common currency, for Coote has included there only "|some fewe of the harde{|st}" words (29.1.44). Thus, "is borowed from the Grecians," with its continuous-past combination of present tense and past participle, nicely captures at least one dilemma surrounding the question of what constitutes English usage, the chief criterion of the OED. At what point is a given word to be designated no longer of merely foreign origin, but rather part of the native lexicon?

• preiudicate: fore{|st}alled (29.2.1192). No mention of 'forestalled' under OED 'prejudicate'; however, under 'forestalled' we have "bespoken, or taken beforehand; anticipated; prejudiced" and the following example from 1642: "His prejudicate and forestalled heart."

• publican: towle [toll?] gatherer (29.2.1200). Earliest citation under OED 1b. is from 1644.

• queach: thicke heape (29.2.1200). OED has the more specific "dense growth of bushes." If this is accurate, Coote is redundant: "As I went through the ca{|st}l yard, I did chaunce to {|st}umbl in a queach of brambls" (5.1.8.33-34). It is notable that Coote's actual use of the word is consistent with the Table.

• recogni{|s|s}ance: acknowledge (29.2.1209). A non-registered variation of 'recognize', which the OED 3a. defines as "to acknowledge."

• shirtband: "Let {|sh}oes be tied,pin {|sh}irtband clo|se" (26.15). Under 'shirtwaister' (OED 5b., 'shirt' ), earliest citation is from 1659.

• {|si}ni{|st}er: vnhappie (29.2.1310). Not registered under OED   'sinister'; however, under OED 'unhappy', 1a., we have "causing misfortune."

• {|st}illatorie: a di{|st}illing place (29.2.1335). OED 2 cites Cawdrey (1604).

• tertian: euery other day (29.2.1389). This, of course, is suspicious. Coote does not say, however, "every second day," and may in fact intend by 'other' something approximating the more likely "every third day" recognized by the OED.

• vlcer : bile (29.2.1441). Though likely a var. sp. of 'boil', neither 'bile' nor 'boil' or 'byle' are recognized under the OED 'ulcer'; neither is 'ulcer' recognized under 'boil'.

• wrinch: "I wrought my |self out, but did catch a cough,and caught a wrinch in myn ankl" (5.1.8.37-38). Var. sp. of 'wrench' antedates OED 2b. citation of 1655.

6. Encoding (Ian Lancashire)

HTML formats the edition for reading by Web browsers and so can be successfully parsed by a Document Type Definition (DTD). This can be found, for example, in a reference work for HTML tagging by Musciano and Kennedy (1996). Using a Netscape browser gives a readable text, but one without printer's matter: running titles, catchwords, the original page numbers, and signatures. This formatted version also silently removes all non-HTML tags, that is, all sign of RET encoding, but it admits the incidental encoding, which is limited to text found within pairs of braces and of square brackets. These visible delimiters enclose editorial matter such as ligatures and reference numbers for each line of the discursive text. The HTML version also expands all contractions and emends typographical errors and errata identified by Coote himself, but these changes are all made visible by underlining.

RET tags interpret the content of the passages they delimit and describe. They identify one possible set of structures for the book and state the functions of each aspect of those structures. Although every effort has been made to ensure their accuracy, these tags have not been parsed by SGML software, and no Document Type Definitions are supplied for them. The RET tags identify two overlapping hierarchical structures, one bibliographical ("book-type" or "bkdv" divisions), the other textual ("text-type" or "ttdv" divisions).

<bkdv> divisions represent the hierarchical, nested structure imposed by the printer on the text: a gathering (<bkdv1>) encloses pages (<bkdv2>), and a page encloses columns (<bkdv3>). (It is difficult within SGML to represent the structure of inner and outer forms within a DTD except just by labelling each page in turn as belonging to one form or another.) Although bibliographical structure may seem to represent only the facts of how the book was assembled, it also is interpretative. For example, this edition interprets marginalia as notes, although they appear to the left or the right of the main text, conventionally, in a separate vertical space. RET, however, treats any column as potentially containing both text and marginal notes. This edition also does not assign a logical fourth bibliographical division (<bkdv4>), nested inside columns, to lines. If assigned, this encoding would imply that a page in more than one column has multiple lineations, an interpretation inconsistent with how readers normally view a page: the eye tends to see a line as starting on the left and extending across columns to the right edge of the page. On the other hand, the marginalia in this book have smaller lines than the text proper and so do not flow crosswise easily. Accordingly, this edition does not encode "book" lines, which count printer's matter, blank lines, and text.

<ttdv> divisions represent the hierarchy of Coote's subject matter. This edition interprets it as a single volume (ttdv1) enclosing 32 parts (ttdv2), from title page to colophon. The book's structure could also be interpreted as a nine-part instructional anthology: preliminaries (parts 1-4: title page, profession, preface, fonts); spelling instruction, in two books and subdivided chapters (part 5); the catechism or dialogue on religious knowledge (parts 6-7); useful prayers, psalms, and proverbs (parts 8-25); a closing address to the students (part 26); a section on numeration (part 27); a chronology (part 28); a dictionary (part 29); and the conclusion (epilogue, errata, and colophon; parts 30-32). These large units, on the other hand, overlap one another sometimes; and Coote gives no table of contents and little indication of how he would group the sections. Available headings support the relatively flat hierarchical structure adopted here.

Further subdivisions exist inside some second-level <ttdv2> parts. The psalms and proverbs are numbered in multi-line verses (and Psalm 119 breaks down into two parts, each of which has verses). Coote's chronology offers period divisions labelled as chapters, and each event noted follows a two-part year-and-subject sequence. Dictionary word-entries fall into word-form and explanation, sometimes supplemented or replaced by a cross-reference.

Other non-structural units receive tags: headings, closings, expansions of abbreviated forms, editorial corrections, marginal notes (which are linked by an HTML anchor tag to the place in the text to which they belong), printer's matter (the <fw> or "form-work" tag), and speeches and speech prefixes in the catechism.

The character set for this text also needs codes. Where possible, this edition employs HTML entity references for special characters such as "æ" and soft hyphen. Twenty characters have no entity references: long-s, inverted "a" and "e", ligatured letters, and double-e-acute. These are enclosed in braces. Four contractions and four brevigraphs--single characters with a macron or another letter immediately above it--are expanded in the edition but encoded within the <expan> tag in encoded form with a pair of single bars (e.g., "|_a|", "|w+t+|"). Again, there are no entity references for abbreviations of this kind.

Notes

14. A check of word entries from A to C in Coote's dictionary reveals that all but 81 out of 427 headwords, or 19 percent, appear in Mulcaster's table (Y1v-Ee3v).

Bibliography

Appendix 1: Tag and Character Sets

HTML Tags

Renaissance Electronic Texts (RET) Tags

Entity References

Special Characters

Marks of Abbreviation

Appendix 2: Emendations to Text