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 I
b 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.
