I. The Order of Issues
The issues of this Folio are distinguished by three settings of
the letterpress for A2.5 of the initial quire, a sheet containing
on the recto (outer forme) of one leaf the title to the work, and
on the recto (inner forme) of the other several commemorative
verses on the author. Two of the three settings for the title also
exist in a number of states, usually identified by alterations in
the impressions for Robert Allot, one of the principal
shareholders, or by the special imprints provided for his
collaborators. Between the variants for both leaves there is an
obvious correlation best described, in Smith's terminology, as:
Allot 1 associated with Effigies A; Allot 2-3 with Effigies B; and
Allot 4-5, Aspley, Hawkins, Meighen, and Smethwick, all with
Effigies C.
To substantiate this sequence, insofar as it applies to the
Allot variants, Professor Smith believed that we may "assume, with
a high degree of probability, that the order of the title-pages
follows the order of improvement, since it is readily demonstrable
that the compositor or compositors tried to correct in every
succeeding title-page mistakes made in the preceding one."[3] The probability, it seems to me,
is at
times very remote. Where the corrections occur within the setting,
as in Allot 2-3 and Allot 4-5, the intent and direction of
improvement is apparent. But where the corrections require a
completely new setting, as in the transition from Allot 1 to 2 and
from 3 to 4, the necessity of such extraordinary measures for such
trifling results remains obscure—at least under the present
assumption.
Even more remarkable is the fact that whenever the compositor of
the title discards his forme the compositor of the Effigies page
also discards his at precisely the same time. This means
that the two men, working together and in the same incomprehensible
fashion, twice distribute the entire letterpress for the sheet,
twice prepare others, and in the process aimlessly fritter away the
hours (days, I should say) shuffling and reshuffling countless
reglets, wedges, quoins, quads and spaces, as well as some 4960
sorts[4]—all this, we note, to
arrange a few "improvements"
which any dolt could have managed in five to ten minutes with
several pieces of type. In view of this circumstance, one
unparalleled in the annals of bibliography, the inclination is to
cast about for another hypothesis wherein these seeming absurdities
are reasonably explained.
For the moment, though, let us consider what else may be said
for our diligent compositors and their heroic struggle to improve
the text. In the sentence following the one cited, Smith assured us
that "this assumption acquires a certainty with the demonstration
of typographical links between successive title-pages."[5] Between the first two settings there
is
assuredly, not only a typographical connection in the employment of
the same fonts of type, but also, as Smith elsewhere observes, a
further correlation in the use of the same variety of paper.
Obviously, then, these two were prepared within a relatively short
period. Between the second and the third, on the other hand, no
similarity exists. In Smith's words, the type is "not identical,"
"in a different font," and the paper for the later setting is drawn
"from another stock."[6] Thus by his
own admission the "links" disappear,
the demonstration fails, and the expected certainty resolves into
an increasing distrust of the entire argument. If the premise is
unsustained all that is based upon it is in imminent danger of
collapse.
At this impasse let us now turn to another theory immediately
verified by evidence within the book and thereafter supported by
every indication of relevance to this inquiry. Contrary to the
received opinion, this would suppose that the Title-Effigies sheet
was, for various reasons, deliberately underprinted and then, as
the occasion required, twice reset at some later time to dispose of
remainders. The sheet identifying each of the subsequent issues
might therefore, in this view, be properly regarded as a "reprint,"
and like all reprints would presumably convey readings inferior to
those in its copytext. Possibly, then, the order is the reverse of
that alleged, and the sequence one of degradation rather than
improvement.
Some credence is given this presumption by the questions the
publishers themselves might have raised. Why run a complete issue
of the most expensive sheet[7] in a
very costly book? Since this was not an original edition, why
imprint their names to something which might still be on the
shelves some twenty years after they were gone and forgotten? Why
not print just enough for their immediate needs and let events
determine
whether they, or their successors, should print again?
[8] Should these or other
considerations
have convinced them—and now convince us—of the
advisability of
limiting the original issue, the publishers of the Second Folio may
be credited with greater foresight than those of the Third and
Fourth; for while they eventually chose not to alter the original
make-up in successive printings, their precaution obviated any
necessity for cancellation, a necessity later enforced upon their
less perceptive successors.
[9]
For the thesis, as now proposed, several pieces of evidence may
be advanced, all tending to the same conclusion. In his examination
of the correlations among the three settings Professor Smith
neglected to observe that the two which are actually connected have
no relation to the rest of the book, whereas the third, though
independent of the others, is very closely affiliated both in the
ornamental letters and in the paper used for this setting. The
ornaments in all issues, consisting of the letters "S" and "W" on
the Effigies page,[10] are of three
kinds, each cut in a manner that suggests their origin in three
separate foundries.
|
Group
|
Effigies
|
Ornamental block
|
| 1 |
C |
"S" against a filigreed background |
| 1 |
C & B |
"W" against a similar background |
| 2 |
A |
Type "S" within a wreathed factotum |
| 3 |
B |
"S" against a broad leaf background |
| 3 |
A |
"W" against a similar background |
Among these only group 1 is represented in the Folio.
[11]
As with the ornaments, so with the paper: that used for the
settings commonly described as the first and second (Heawood 594)
does not appear elsewhere in this book or in any other book of this
date, but that used for the setting usually considered to be the
third (H 1420 or 1731) repeatedly occurs in the last nineteen
quires of the Folio.[12] Now since the
preliminary sheet would normally be printed in conjunction with
other work toward the end of the book, the identity in paper
confirms the identity in ornaments and establishes a strong
presumption for an order in which the "third" setting is
distinguished as the first. Thus, in the absence of the slightest
evidence to the contrary, the Allot 4-5—Effigies C sheet must be
regarded as the original issue, carefully prepared from manuscript,
and the others as mere reprints, hastily composed, badly centered
and spaced, and obviously degraded in text.
The exact order of the reprints may now be determined by the
textual relationship among the title-pages.
Table I
| Issue |
I |
II |
III |
| [Smith] |
[Allot 4-5] |
[Allot 1] |
[Allot 2-3] |
| Line |
| 1a |
Mr. |
Mr. |
Mr. |
| 1b |
W |
VV |
VV |
| 4 |
HISTORIES, |
HISTORIES, |
HISTORIES |
| 7ab |
fmpreſsion [double s separate] |
fmpreſsion [double s separate] |
Impreſsion [double s ligatured] |
| 9 |
Tho. |
Tho. |
Tho
|
| 10a |
Blacke |
blacke |
blacke |
| 10b |
Pauls |
Pauls |
Pauls
|
| 10cd |
Church-yard. |
Church-yard. |
Church-yard, |
From Table I
[13] it will be observed
that, on this score alone, Allot 1 cannot be designated as the
first in a sequence of issues gradually "improving" in the
direction of Allot 5, for it is intermediate between 5 and 2,
having seven variants in common with the one and three in common
with the other. Hence for this reason, others previously adduced,
and others yet to be divulged, I suggest that we reject the
outmoded "Allot 1—5" classification and adopt one corresponding
to the evident order of issues. Including only
what I believe to be the first of the states in the initial setting
(all of which will be dealt with in the next section) the three
issues, with their variants, are identified as follows:
| Order |
Ia |
II |
IIIa |
IIIb |
| [Smith] |
[Allot 5—Effigies C] |
[Allot 1—Effigies A] |
[Allot 2—Effigies B] |
[Allot 3—Effigies B] |
| Description |
1st issue, |
2d issue |
3d issue, |
3d issue |
|
1st state |
|
1st state |
2d state |
| Paper |
H1731[14]
|
H594 |
H594 |
H594[15]
|
| Ornaments on Effigies page |
1,1 |
2,3 |
1,3 |
1,3 |
The inspection of a photostat from copy tentatively identified as
a variant of the state now described as IIIb
[16] leads me to believe that this is the
artful work of a restorer.
With the three issues properly identified, and properly arranged
in sequence, we should now endeavor to fix the approximate time and
circumstance of publication. For the later settings, as for certain
Jaggard-Pavier quartos, there is some indication that the imprint
is misleading in all of its particulars. Unquestionably, as the
paper attests, issue I was printed and sold in the manner announced
on the title page. But II and III, though distributed with a
similar announcement, were produced on such unusual paper that an
intensive search through the crown folios in several libraries[17] has disclosed its presence not
before
1637 and then only in three books: certain leaves of the
preliminary quire of Camden's Britain (1637), printed by
Felix Kyngston and others; throughout in Paris's Historia
maior (1640), by Richard Hodgkinson;
and occasionally as a single sheet in Parkinson's Theatrum
Botanicum (1640),[18]
ostensibly
by Thomas Cotes, the printer
of the Second Folio. Moreover, as the investigation has also
revealed, the distinctive mark for this paper seems to exist only
in the two states required for a single pair of moulds;
[19] and as neither of these states
shows
any sign of deterioration the inference follows that the period of
manufacture approximates the dates of the books in which the paper
was found. It is quite probable, therefore, that the later issues
of the Shakespeare Folio were sold, not by Robert Allot in 1632,
but by his successors sometime between 1636 and 1641.
Within that period occur four significant events, any one of
which might have provided a suitable occasion for reissue: (1) an
inventory of Allot's effects subsequent to his death in 1635; (2)
a transfer of the stock by his widow Mary to Legatt and Crooke on
the first of July, 1637; (3) the gradual accumulation of unsold
copies returned to the new proprietors upon the demise of Allot's
original collaborators, all of whom had died between 1636 and
1641;[20] and (4) still another
inventory, in 1641, upon the death of Thomas Cotes, the printer of
the original issue and part owner of the stock. Of these the most
plausible circumstance is the last. Under any other condition we
would expect to find issues with Legatt's imprint and Crooke's name
as publisher. But since these do not appear, and since, in any
event, neither Legatt nor Crooke was in possession of the paper,
engraving,
or ornaments used for these issues,[21] their origin may be traced
to certain untitled lots originally reserved for Cotes and now
brought forth upon their discovery in 1641. At this time, as
stipulated by the will, Thomas's younger brother Richard assumed
possession of the stock, the printing shop, and all implements
therein.
[22]
That Richard should have failed to enter his name on the titles
is not surprising, for of all the established printers of the day
his record is distinguished by a penchant for anonymity. So far as
I can discover, within the STC period, his name appears alone as
printer on only two books, both undated.[23] Only once is he associated with a
printer other than Thomas, and on the occasions when he is entered
with his brother he usually withdraws his name from subsequent
editions.[24] Books in which he had a
considerable interest, such as the nine owned jointly with his
brother[25] or the nine owned
exclusively by himself,[26] appear
invariably with the name of Thomas alone, never his own. Even for
the Second Folio, an enterprise in which his investment was twice
that of his brother's,[27] comparable
to Allot's,
and equivalent to the total advanced by the minor shareholders, the
colophon and imprints register the names of all but the
self-effacing Richard Cotes. Apparently, if this practice has any
significance, the greater his responsibility and—we may
presume—the greater his share of the presswork, the less his
inclination to acknowledge it. Much of what is nominally under the
imprint of Thomas may, then, be justly attributed to his silent
partner.
Of all the books to which I have alluded, only one bears any
particular relationship to the later issues of the Folio, and in
every respect the correlation is complete, exact, and irrefutable.
This, we should now recall, is the Theatrum Botanicum
(19302), a volume which contains in some copies the rare and
elusive watermark also found in these issues. Here then is the
crucial exhibit: a book published within a year of the inventory of
Thomas's effects, with paper and ornaments like those in the sheet
applied
to the remainders presumably discovered in that appraisal, and with
an imprint assigning the presswork to one man when it was actually
the property and almost certainly the work of another. Faced with
this series of coincidences, I find it impossible to avoid the
conclusion that the title-pages for these issues, now reading
"Printed by
Tho. Cotes, for
Robert Allot . . .
1632",
[28] should be understood as
"Printed by and for
Richard Cotes . . . 1641
or
later."
Thus, at last, the esteemed "first" and "second" issues—the
erstwhile "Allots 1—3," so enshrined by the earlier
bibliographers and so avidly pursued by collectors everywhere—are
now revealed to be, in all the light that can be shed upon them,
nothing more than sweepings from the warehouse floor. Whether these
scraps are entitled to remain within the pale of the Short-Title
Catalogue is not for me to decide. I am content to present here
the circumstantial evidence and, later, a proper motive for
Richard's action in reissuing the book in the manner
described.[29]
