University of Virginia Library

IV. The Effigies Leaf

In this and the following section I approach two considerations, one of such importance that a single commentary on the subject attained a circulation, if we may believe the author, of some 20,000,000 copies,[51] the other of equal importance but generally disregarded, both intimately related to all that has gone before, and both easily dispatched (the reader will be glad to know) on the warrant of evidence already adduced.

The first of these pertains to leaf A5, the recto of which bears two commendatory verses on Shakespeare, one by an unknown author "Vpon the Effigies of my worthy Friend," the other Milton's earliest printed English poem, titled as "An Epitaph on the admirable Dramaticke Poet". Since this page is conjugate to the title and, like its mate, appears in three different settings, the established order for the one leaf enforces a similar order for the other. Without further ado I therefore present, in Table IV, an account of the textual and typographical variation among the issues.

Table IV

                                           

Issue	Ib	II	III
[Smith]	[C]	[A]	[B]
Line
3	VV	W	W
4	["S" initial 1]	[2]	[3]
6	Comicke	Comicke	Comick
9	paſsions [ſs ligatured]	paſsions [ſs separate]	paſſions [ſſ separate]
11	Shake-ſpeare	Shakeſpeare	Shake-ſpeare
13a	Poet,	Poet	Poet,
13b	VV	W	W
13c	Shakespeare	Shakespeare	Shakeſpeare
14a	["W" initial 1]	[3]	[1]
14b	honour'd	honour'd	honor'd
17a	Vnder	Under	Vnder
17b	-ypointing	-ypointed	-ypointing
18	Fame	Fame	Fame
22a	whil'st [st ligatured]	whil'st, [st ligatured]	whil'ſt [ſt ligatured]
22b	-endevouring	-endevouring	-endeavouring
22c	Art	Art,	Art
25a	Impreſsion	Impreſsion	impreſsion
25b	tooke	tooke:	tooke
28	lie	lie,	lie

From this it will be immediately observed that, while Smith's representation of "each succeeding version [in the order A-B-C as] being printed from its immediate predecessor" is manifestly untrue, the statement is just as inapplicable for the order I-II-III.[52] But where Smith was forced to this contention by his arbitrary arrangement of the title-pages, no such obligation rests upon us. Though the order for title and Effigies page is, we reaffirm, identical, the copytext furnished the two compositors need not always be the same. For II both followed I, the only available text. For III, on the other hand, two different copies were passed to the compositors, a sheet of II to the man setting the title, a sheet of I again to the man setting the Effigies page. Thus the text descends directly for one page and collaterally for the other.[53]

To clarify the relationship I offer four stemma, the first illustrating my own explanation, the second conforming to Smith's, the third and fourth exemplifying others which might be advanced.

The difficulty with (2), we note, is the absence of any textual link between Title III and I or between Effigies II and III; with (3) and (4) the presence of an eclectic text in Effigies I; with all three the assertion of priority to issues containing paper and ornaments not found before 1637. Aside from all other considerations, these impediments alone are insurmountable.

A comparison of Effigies Ib [54] with the page I have reproduced now

leads to another discovery,[55] another predicament, and another solution. The facsimile provided here is of an earlier state a in which the readings for the Effigies poem differ slightly from the usual version.      

Poem line: 3	4	6
Ia Commicke	Laughe,	riſe
Ib Comicke	Laugh,	riſe,

In the correction of this page the compositor dutifully moved the single word after Comicke to close the gap created by the excised m, but neglected to justify the deletion in Laugh, perhaps because there were seven words in this line. Thus between the comma and the following word an en space appears as witness to his indolence. In a the peculiar readings are such that they cannot intervene between others (e.g., between III and Ib in Smith's sequence) but must precede those in all three issues.[56]

The predicament arises when we attempt to correlate state a of the Effigies page with state a of the title for this issue. The order in one, presumably, should correspond to the order of the other. Except for a chance conjunction in a made-up copy,[57] however, this page occurs only with titles in state b.[58] If a single pressman handled both of these formes in succession then, despite all the evidence to the contrary, it would be necessary to reverse the order in one or the other sequence. But since the Cotes establishment is known to have had at least two presses,[59] we may adhere to the evidence for both states and argue that the formes were machined

simultaneously. In this manner each man would receive half of the sheets for the issue, and as these were worked off the two heaps would then be turned over and exchanged for the reiteration. The man printing the titles would therefore begin to perfect his companion's heap (topped, presumably, by the several sheets with Effigies in state a) at a point midway through his own operation. And that point, as a reference to our schedule will show,[60] occurs just after he has printed 240 copies of b and while he has 216 yet to go. Again, it would seem, apparently irreconcilable facts combine to provide an almost certain conclusion. Indeed, the case is so neat in this instance that I venture to predict that state a of the Effigies leaf will be found conjugate only with state b of the title.