University of Virginia Library

Variant Forms of Fielding's Coffee-House Politician
Jeanne Addison Masengill

An attempt to trace the publication history of Henry Fielding's early play, The Coffee-House Politician, raises a number of interesting questions, some of which may be answered with a degree of assurance although some remain puzzling. W. L. Cross lists in his bibliography[1] two editions of the play, one on June 23, 1730, under the title Rape Upon Rape, and a second, as The Coffee-House Politician, with variant Epilogue, on December 17, 1730. Allardyce Nicoll also mentions two versions and tells us that the play was performed in the fall "with an entire new act."[2] The Monthly Chronicle for 1730 supports Cross in listing Rape Upon Rape in June and The Coffee-House Politician for December;[3] but Winston, in the Folger Shakespeare Library copy of the Winston MSS.,[4] has a note beside the June 23 performance of Rape Upon Rape to the effect that it has been "previously published," although for this I find no support. Finally Herman R. Mead notes the existence of three variant forms to be found in the Huntington Library.[5]

Comparison of a number of copies of the play, all London 1730, has led me to the conclusion that it exists actually in only one edition, that the edition has three issues, and that the third issue exists in two states. The forms may be distinguished as follows:

• (i) Rape upon Rape; | OR, THE | JUSTICE | Caught in his own TRAP. | A | COMEDY. | As it is Acted at the | Theatre in the Hay-Market. | [rule] | [ornament] | [double rule] | LONDON: | Printed for J. Wats, at the Printing-Office in | Wild-Court near Lincolns-Inn Fields. | [rule] | MDCCXXX. | Price One Shilling and Six Pence.

  Coll: 8°: A4 B-F8 (F8 blank), [$4(-A3,4) signed].

  Notes: A2: PROLOGUE. | Spoken by Mr. PAGET.
  l. 15. "Beaus"
  l. 16. "weild the Sword"

  ---

  179

  
  
  

  A3: EPILOGUE. | Spoken by Mrs. MULLART.
  l. 1. "RAPE upon Rape! what Author ever chose"

  A4: Advertisement dated June 23, 1730. (THE WIDOW BEWITCH'D. etc.)

  A4v: Haymarket cast: Worthy, Mr. Paget; Hilaret, Mrs. Mullart, etc. c.w. Rape

  Copies: CSmH (Kemble-Devonshire 291), DLC, MH, MWiW-C, British Museum, Bodleian, and University Library, Cambridge.[6]

• (ii) THE | Coffee-House Politician; | OR, THE | JUSTICE | Caught in his own TRAP. | A | COMEDY. | As it is Acted at the | Theatre-Royal in Lincoln's-Inn Fields. | [rule] | Written by Mr. FIELDING. | [rule] | [ornament] | [double rule] | LONDON: | Printed for J. Watts, at the Printing-Office in | Wild-Court near Lincoln's-Inn Fields. | [rule] | MDCCXXX.

  (It is possible that the last line, as it appears in the other forms, has been cut off the inlaid title-page of this copy.)

  Coll: Same as (i).

  Notes: Title: Single hyphen between "Coffee" and "House"
  Hyphen between "Theatre" and "Royal"
  l. 9. Hyphen between "Lincoln's" and "Inn"
  Imprint. Apostrophe in "Lincoln's"
  All other noted points same as (i).

  Copy: CSmH (Kemble-Devonshire 187).

• (iiia) THE | Coffee—House Politician; | OR, THE | JUSTICE | Caught in his own TRAP. | A | COMEDY. | As it is Acted at the | Theatre Royal in Lincoln's Inn-Fields. | [rule] | Written by Mr. FIELDING. | [rule] | [ornament] | [double rule] | LONDON: | Printed for J. Watts, at the Printing-Office in | Wild-Court near Lincolns-Inn Fields. | [rule] | MDCCXXX. | Price One Shilling and Six Pence.

  Coll: Same as (i).

  Notes: Title: Double hyphen between "Coffee" and "House"
  No hyphen between "Theatre" and "Royal"
  l. 9. Hyphen between "Inn" and "Fields"
  Imprint. No apostrophe in "Lincolns"
  Slightly different type alignment from (ii).

  A2: PROLOGUE. | Spoken by Mr. MILW ARD.
  l. 15. "Beaux"
  l. 16. "weild her Sword"

  A3: EPILOGUE. | Spoken by Mrs. YOVNGER.
  l. 1. "At length the dreadful Hurricane is ended,"

  A4: Advertisement dated November 27, 1730. (The FIFTH EDITION of LETTERS of ABELARD and HELOISE. etc.) A4v: Lincoln's-Inn-Fields Cast: Worthy, Mr. Milward; Politick, Mr. Boheme; Constant, Mr. Chapman; Hilaret, Mrs. Boheme; Isabella, Mrs. Templer; etc. No c.w.

  ---

  180

  
  
  

  Copies: CSmH (Hoe), CtY, DFo, DLC, ICN, ICU, MH, MiU, MWiW-C, NjP, TxU (two, one imperfect), British Museum (?, A4 missing), and Bodleian.

• (iiib) Like (iiia) except A4v, which has Lincoln's-Inn-Fields Cast, but: Worthy, Mr. Ogden; Politick, Mr. Chapman; Constant, Mr. Milward; Hilaret, Mrs. Younger; Isabella, Mrs. Boheme. The rest of the cast is the same as in (iiia).

  Copies: CtY, MH.

Apparently in all these states,[7] the collation is identical for B-F8. The only exceptions I have found are a different ornament at the top of B1 in the DLC copy of (iiia), quite possibly a press variant, and the lack of F8 in this copy and perhaps in others. I have, in fact, found no evidence to contradict the conclusion that the gatherings B-F are all the product of a single typesetting. All agree in the running-title, Rape upon Rape; Or, | The Justice caught in his own Trap., and the pagination and type alignment are the same in each. There are a number of uncorrected errors in the texts: "Goal" for "Gaol", p. 71; "Teasure" for "Treasure", p. 75, etc.; and all share many notable peculiarities in type: "Scene V1II", p. 36, etc. Even the running-titles, signatures, and catchwords agree in relative positions and other peculiarities. ("Bamb." for "Ramb.", p. 19, c.w.; "Ra" of running-title markedly slanted, p. 66, etc.) We may conclude, then, that we have to deal actually with only one edition of the play. If there really was "an entire new act," it seems never to have gotten into the printed text; and the truth may be either that the revived play was misrepresented in its advertisements, (Winston's note says "rev. by Author.") or that Nicoll was misled by the rewritten epilogue, which is included in the new performances and the later issues.

Since the typesetting is the same for gatherings B-F in the spring and fall issues of the play, we must conclude either that the type itself was kept standing all summer for a reimpression, or that a number of sheets printed in the spring were kept over the summer as remainders. The latter is obviously the simpler and more probable hypothesis, and there is some evidence to support it. For one thing, the play almost certainly had a disappointing sale. The printer had every reason to believe that the edition would be a success—it had a provocative title, and it was Fielding's fourth dramatic production of the season. The other three had all done well: The Temple Beau had run a respectable thirteen nights, and The Author's Farce and Tom Thumb had been tremendously popular, the one going through two and the other through three editions in the course of the year. But Rape Upon Rape opened very late, played only seven nights in the season, and according to Winston's notes had only fair box-office receipts. Therefore, Watts probably was left with unsold sheets on his hands and almost certainly would not have kept his type tied up for the summer in a not-too-promising play. This hypothesis is further substantiated by the fact that there are no signs of a re-impression: even the running-titles, signatures, and catchwords are not reset in the fall issues, though they would almost surely have been removed if the type had been kept standing, and indeed were removed in the first gathering where

there are signs of standing type. We may, then, advance the theory that gatherings B-F represent a single impression of a single type-setting.

In the first gathering, however, the problem is more complex. Notwithstanding the various changes noted above, the same basic typesetting is present in each version. Thus the prologue, A2 and A2v, is the same typesetting throughout although (iiia) and (iiib) have corrections in ll. 15 and 16, and the head and tail ornaments, initial, signature, and the word "Prologue" have clearly been reset. Even in the rewritten epilogue, A3 and A3v, the passages which have been retained in (iiia) and (iiib) are in the same setting as the corresponding passages in (i) and (ii), though again the ornaments and the word "Epilogue" are reset. A4 in (i) and (ii) is the same setting of the advertisement; and (iiia) and (iiib) similarly agree. On A4v, (iiia) and (iiib) have the same setting of the dramatis personae, with the noted changes; but the whole page is a different setting from that shared by (i) and (ii).

The determination of the order and the exact relationship of these forms depends to some extent on establishing the stage history of the play. Winston, Nicoll, and Cross agree that the play opened as Rape Upon Rape at the Little Theatre in the Haymarket on June 23. After the summer vacation, it played one more night in the Haymarket, on November 27, as The Coffee-House Politician. Then, for some reason, the play was moved to Lincoln's-Inn-Fields, where it was given on December 4, 5, 7, and 17. Genest[8] and Cross[9] state that Mrs. Younger took the role of Hilaret on December 4, and Winston specifies that Mrs. Boheme was Isabella. Cross even adds that the epilogue was probably revised at the request of Mrs. Younger although he offers no proof and we may note that the old epilogue, beginning,

loses its point once the title has been changed. In any case, the new epilogue was clearly intended to be spoken by some character in the play, probably Hilaret, for it begins, Genest lists Mr. Milward as Constant, and the prologue would fittingly have been spoken by him. None of the authorities mentioned discusses any change in the original Lincoln's-Inn-Fields cast, but the variant A4v of (iiib) suggests that changes were made at some point in the progress of the production.

In view of the stage history, the evidence of the advertisements in A4, and those in the periodicals referred to by Cross,[10] there is no reason to doubt that Rape Upon Rape (i) was actually the first issue of the play and that it appeared on June 23. Since all the other forms have the new title, and Lincoln's-Inn-Fields on the title-page, we may add that (i) was the issue brought out in the spring of 1730. We may then suppose that Watts kept a fairly large number of already printed copies of gatherings B-F, and some printed copies of the first gathering. We are forced to the conclusion

that he kept as well the type for the first gathering since this theory explains most satisfactorily the recurrence of the same typesetting with new headings and signature and internal revisions in (iiia) and (iiib). The position of (ii) is somewhat doubtful since the unique copy of this state, in the Kemble-Devonshire collection, has inlaid leaves so that it is now impossible to draw any conclusion about the conjugacy of the leaves. This could be a "made-up" copy, but since it has a genuinely variant title-page, I have accepted it as the second issue. If this is correct, (ii) was probably brought out very soon after the fall opening—possibly as a stop-gap to meet a demand created by the one Haymarket performance. The title-page was most likely a cancel prefixed to old sheets of the first gathering and bound without regard for the fact that it joined a Lincoln's-Inn-Fields title-page with a Haymarket cast and an epilogue related to the old title.

Only a few copies of the second issue were apparently sold, and it is reasonable to suppose that the third issue, with reset title-page, corrected prologue, revised epilogue, and Lincoln's-Inn-Fields cast, was in preparation at the time of the Lincoln's-Inn-Fields rehearsals. According to the usual practice, it would have appeared on or about December 4, the day of the new opening. That this was what actually did happen is indicated by advertisements, not listed by Cross, in the London Evening-Post. Its issue for December 1-3 announces "Tomorrow will be published" The Coffee-House Politician, and the one for December 3-5 follows up with the information that it is "Published Today." We may, therefore, conclude with reasonable assurance that the new issue did appear early in December.

The issue exists, however, in two states. Both have the same basic typesetting as (i) and (ii), and yet contain changes on every leaf of the initial sheet; hence, we must suppose that the whole first gathering was reprinted from the modified standing type. The only remaining problem is the determination of which is the earlier of the two states. The solution hinges on the cast of characters on A4v as this is the only place in which the two states do not agree.

If we accept the statements that Mrs. Younger was Hilaret when the play opened on December 4, we are tempted to theorize that (iiib), the state which contains her name in the cast and as speaker of the epilogue, is the earlier form. We might complete this theory by suggesting that some time after December 4, perhaps in the interim between the seventh and the seventeenth, the cast was changed. Watts might then have corrected the cast, neglecting to replace Mrs. Younger's name on A3, and have brought out the second state about December 17, the date suggested by Cross for the "second edition." But this hypothesis has certain difficulties. The simplest method of making the change in cast would have been by the canceling of A4. But none of the copies of (iiia) which I have seen or had described shows any clear signs of cancellation.[11] If Watts did not cancel, he must have reprinted the whole gathering, and if so, being a careful printer, why did he not replace Mrs. Younger's name on A3? He might have canceled by removing the conjugate leaves A1 and A4 after the edges had been trimmed and replacing them with corrected leaves; but, if this were the case, one would expect to find some evidence in the failure of the chain lines of the new leaves to coincide exactly with those of the old. Also, in order to imagine a reprinting of the A1 and A4 leaves, or even of just A4 as it occurs in (iiia), we

must concede that Watts kept the type of the gathering standing for some two weeks and kept it, not as he had kept it before, with headlines, etc. removed, but just as it had been used for (iiib). Finally, and most improbably, this theory allows the supposition that the greatest number of copies were printed and sold, not when the play opened, but on December 17, when after a single performance, the demand ceased altogether.[12]

On the whole, an alternative hypothesis seems more satisfactory. Let us suppose that there was no change in the cast after the actual opening of the play. The listing in (iiia) may be taken to represent rather a provisional casting given to Watts when the Lincoln's-Inn-Fields rehearsals began. He may then have proceeded to change his standing type where necessary and prepare for printing everything except the revised epilogue which he had to get from Fielding himself. It is possible that by the time the epilogue was completed there had been changes made in the cast: in particular, that Mrs. Younger had been substituted for Mrs. Boheme in the role of Hilaret. Fielding accordingly would have supplied her name as the speaker of the epilogue. A3 and A3v would then have been set in their final form; and the printing would have begun. At some time—either during this printing process, or between December 4 and 17, someone familiar with the cast noted that the listing on A4v had not been changed, and hence the necessary corrections were made.

Yet the same objections as before may be made against conjecturing a second printing later in December. In addition, there would not now be even the occasion of a modified production; and it seems unlikely that Watts would have bothered to correct such a relatively minor error after a large number of copies had already been issued and after it must have become fairly obvious that the play was not destined for a long run.

The simplest conclusion, therefore, and the one I wish to present, is that A4v was corrected during the course of the printing of the December 4 issue. It is true that this printing would not have occupied more than four or five hours; but if Fielding was on hand to proof-read his revised epilogue, he himself could easily have called for the alteration of A4v to agree with the scheduled opening-night cast. The error would probably not have been considered sufficiently grave to deter the use of the already printed copies (iiia), probably most of the issue. Whatever the actual situation was, the weight of the argument seems to favor the classification of (iiia) as the first state and (iiib) as the second.

The analysis of the variant forms of the play indicates, then, three issues: (i) represents the first, on June 23; (ii) is the second, probably very late in November; (iiia) and (iiib) are respectively the first and second states of the third issue, on December 4. Judging from the number of extant copies, the final issue sold considerably better than the first two; but the play was doomed. Lincoln's-Inn-Fields closed for the Christmas vacation, and The Coffee-House Politician did not survive the year.

Notes