In his French doublet, with his blister’d (1st fol. baster’d) bullions.
Brome, Sparagus Garden, Wks. 3. 152:
—shaking your Old Bullion Tronkes over my Trucklebed.
Gesta Gray in Nichols’ Prog. Q. Eliz. 3. 341 A, 1594: ‘A bullion-hose is best to go a woeing in; for tis full of promising promontories.’
3. 3. 231 too-too-vnsupportable! This reduplicated form is common in Shakespeare. See Merch. of Ven. 2. 6. 42; Hamlet 1. 2. 129; and Schmidt, Dict. Jonson uses it in Sejanus, Wks. 3. 54, and elsewhere. It is merely a strengthened form of too. (See Halliwell in Sh. Soc. Papers, 1884, 1. 39, and Hamlet, ed. Furness, 11th ed., 1. 41.) Jonson regularly uses the hyphen.
3. 4. 13 Cioppinos. Jonson spells the word as if it were Italian, though he says in the same sentence that the custom of wearing chopines is Spanish. The NED., referring to Skeat, Trans. Phil. Soc., 1885-7, p. 79, derives it from Sp. chapa, a plate of metal, etc. ‘The Eng. writers c 1600 persistently treated the word as Italian, even spelling it cioppino, pl. cioppini, and expressly associated it with Venice, so that, although not recorded in Italian Dicts. it was app. temporarily fashionable there.’ The statement of the NED. that ‘there is little or no evidence of their use in England (except on the stage)’ seems to be contradicted by the quotation from Stephen Gosson’s Pleasant Quippes (note 1. 1. 128). References to the chopine are common in the literature of the period (see Nares and NED.). I have found no instances of the Italianated form earlier than Jonson, and it may be original with him. He uses the plural cioppini in Cynthia’s Revels, Wks. 2. 241. See note [4. 4. 69].
3. 4. 32 your purchase. Cf. Alch., Wks. 4. 150, and Fox, Wks. 3. 168: ‘the cunning purchase of my wealth.’ Cunningham (Wks. 3. 498) says: ‘Purchase, as readers of Shakespeare know, was a cant term among thieves for the plunder they acquired, also the act of acquiring it. It is frequently used by Jonson.’
3. 4. 35 Pro’uedor. Gifford’s change to provedoré is without authority. The word is provedor, Port., or proveedor, Sp., and is found in Hakluyt, Voyages, 3. 701; G. Sandys, Trav., p. 6 (1632); and elsewhere, with various orthography, but apparently never with the accent.
3. 4. 43 Gentleman huisher. For the gentleman-usher see note [4. 4. 134]. The forms usher and huisher seem to be used without distinction. The editors’ treatment of the form is inconsistent. See variants, and compare 2. 7. 33.
3. 4. 45-8 wee poore Gentlemen ... piece. Cf. Webster, Devil’s Law Case, Wks. 2. 38: ‘You have certain rich city chuffs, that when they have no acres of their own, they will go and plough up fools, and turn them into excellent meadow.’ Also The Fox 2. 1: