III. The Size and Distribution of Issues
Through various discoveries and acquisitions in the years since
Smith's census the record of extant Second Folios in perfect or
impaired condition[45] may now be
extended to include some 196 copies, or approximately one-fifth of
the number estimated in the original edition. The existing copies
constitute a rather large percentage, large enough, I believe, to
provide a reliable index of the proportions among the states at the
time of publication. I therefore offer, in Table II, several
calculations, one projecting the ratio fixed by the extant copies
and, as a check against this, another indicating a hypothetical
distribution based on the investment of those participating in the
edition.
Table II
- Allocation on Evidence of Known Copies
- Number of perfect exemplars: 163
- Percent of 1000 copies: 16.3
- Allocation on Basis of Copyright
- Number of plays: 36
- Copies per share 36/1000 or 27.8
|
|
&c.mmat; 1000 |
Copies |
&c.mmat; 1000 |
| Variant imprint |
Copies |
Copies |
owned |
Copies |
|
c Smethwick |
16 |
102.0 |
4 |
111.2 |
|
d Aspley |
7 |
43.8 |
2 |
55.6 |
|
ef Hawkins |
9 |
56.3 |
1 |
27.8 |
|
g Meighen |
6 |
37.5 |
1 |
27.8 |
| "Cotes & Allot" |
[125] |
[791.4] |
[28] |
[778.4] |
| Subtotals: a
|
31 |
203.8 |
|
b
|
73 |
456.3 |
| II |
14 |
87.5 |
| III |
7 |
43.8 |
The remarkable correlation between these two sets of figures,
each derived from a different premise, undoubtedly brings us very
close to what must have been the actual distribution. Only in
Hawkins is there an appreciable discrepancy, and this, I believe,
can be compromised by reference to the property held by the minor
shareholders. Any evaluation, whether of plays or of real estate,
involves a consideration not directly related to the size of the
piece. Hawkins had only one play, true, but this was
Othello, a possession certainly equivalent in value to both
of the plays owned by Aspley (Much Ado and 1 Henry
IV) and twice the value of the single play owned by Meighen
(Merry Wives). Between these two figures, then, the one
which measures only the size of the property should very probably
be ignored in deference to the one which evidently signifies its
importance.
With this much rationalized (at least to my own satisfaction) we
may confidently reconcile the slight disparity in the estimates for
all states by adjusting the figures to the practical limits
determined by the quires of paper, i.e., to the nearest
multiple of 24.
|
Ia
|
b
|
c
|
d
|
ef
|
g
|
II |
III |
Total
|
| Quires |
8 |
19 |
4 |
2 |
2 |
1 |
4 |
2 |
42 |
| Issue |
192 |
456 |
96 |
48 |
48 |
24 |
96 |
48 |
1008 |
| Total issue |
864 |
|
|
|
|
|
96 |
48 |
1008 |
This tabulation serves to enforce earlier considerations and leads
to others still unresolved. For one, it will be observed that the
order of imposition in the original issue, as previously
determined, corresponds both to the extent of the copyright and
hence to the size of the allotment for each of the proprietors.
First off the press were the 27 quires of title-sheets for Allot
and Cotes, then 4 for Smethwick, 2 each for Aspley and Hawkins, and
finally a single quire for Meighen. For another, it should be noted
that the total for all issues is within one quire of what the
stationer calls a "perfect bundle,"
[46] the most convenient set-out for an
edition of this size. Both in whole and in part the figures
therefore conform to the general estimate of the extent of the
edition and of its various states.
The matters unresolved and deliberately evaded until now relate
to the occasion for the alteration in the Cotes-Allot imprint
a-b and the reason
for the excessive delay in the production of the later issues
II-III. Since neither of the imprints in the first issue can be
regarded as a correction of the other, we may surmise that the two
were used so that the warehouseman could readily distinguish the
lots to be sent forward to Allot from those to be retained by
Cotes. In the preparation of the edition both of these partners,
like Jaggard and Blount before them, were acting in behalf of
certain unnamed associates as well as for themselves. The 28
"copies" assigned to both by imprint or, rather, the stock
represented by these copies, was therefore not entirely theirs by
right but by purchase from owners who had relinquished any interest
in the sale of their property. Table III identifies the owners of
these copies, the proportionate share of their investment, and, for
comparative purposes, certain other figures from our earlier
estimate.
Table III
|
|
|
Entitlement |
Represented by Cotes-Allot |
| Owner[47]
|
Interest |
Plays |
|
|
|
[multiples of 24] |
Titles in state |
| Robert Allot (½)} |
As indicated, |
{8 |
192 |
Ia (192 copies) |
| Thomas Cotes (¼)} |
part ownership |
{4} |
96} |
| Richard Cotes (¼)} |
in 16 plays. |
{4} |
| Richard Cotes |
exclusive title |
4} |
192} |
Ib (456 copies) |
| Thomas Hayes |
" " |
1 |
24} |
| Nathaniel Butter |
" " |
1 |
24} |
| [Surplus: appropriated by Cotes brothers?] |
|
120} |
| Unassigned, presumably derelict |
6 |
144 |
II,III (144 copies) |
|
|
|
--- |
--- |
|
|
Total: |
792 |
792 |
Since Allot was entitled only to 192 copies, the equivalent of
those estimated in state
a, it would seem that this imprint,
describing the place of sale as "at his ſhop", is the one that
identifies his consignment. Apparently, then, the lots with the
abbreviated imprint
b, those not sold 'at Allot's shop',
were reserved for the Cotes brothers and their unnamed associates.
Included in these, we note, are the 336 copies belonging to them by
right or purchase and, as our speculations lead us to suppose, 120
others over
and above their pro-rata share. Possibly, if there was any such
surplus, some or all of it may have been baled up at the Cotes
warehouse and dispatched to booksellers outside London for sale in
the provinces.
[48]
Besides these, however, there was still another lot which they
could neither publicly claim nor privately appropriate for
themselves—the 144 copies subject to seizure by the unknown
owners of the six derelict plays. This group was discreetly laid
aside, without titles, until such time as the claimants might
identify themselves and secure their proper share with the imprint
they might desire. For nine years or more the brothers Cotes
awaited the heirs of the registered owners. Finally, after the
inventory of 1641, Richard Cotes assumed the rights which others
had allowed to lapse, and provided the remainders with new imprints
copied from a sheet of the original issue.[49] These then appeared at the
bookstalls
with the titles identified as II and III.
Richard's motive in disguising these two issues was, we may
believe, very prudent, if not entirely commendable. Quite apart
from his customary habit of operating under his brother's name,
there was now another and more compelling reason, that of avoiding
a confiscation of all remainders under the Ordinance of 1641. This
specifically prohibited the printing, and hence the sale, of any
book without the express consent of the owners.[50] But who were the owners of these
six
plays? Whoever they were, Cotes must have reasoned, their failure
to contest the issue of 1632 amounted to an abandonment of the
property to which they were then entitled. What was apparent to
Cotes, however, as he doubtless realised, might not be apparent in
the eyes of the law. Hence, rather than invite litigation, he
passed these remnants off as the original issue and stood ready to
defend them as part of an edition published long before the
Ordinance was in effect.
Even in his most sanguine moments, though, he could hardly have
anticipated the ruling of Shakespeare's bibliographers that the
special sheets were to be regarded, not only as coeval with the
original issue, but as a series of states preceding it.
