University of Virginia Library

Chetwin, Crooke, and the Jonson Folios
by
William P. Williams [*]

The history of the 1640 folio edition of Ben Jonson's Works is, in the words of Percy Simpson, a "record of muddle, evasion, and dishonesty."[1] Much of the evidence has been set out by Simpson and Greg,[2] but new information and new interpretations of old information which further our knowledge of the history of the Jonson folios, and particularly the folios of 1640-41, have not been assembled in a single presentation before. I intend to describe briefly the history of the publication and ownership of Jonson's works, and in the process to add some additional evidence about the folios and their publishers with the hope of bringing some order out of the "muddle."

There is little confusion about the so-called "first volume" of Jonson's works; the plays and poems making up this volume were those which Jonson collected in the folio of 1616 (hereafter I F1). This collection was published by William Stansby, with Richard Meighen having a minor interest in it as bookseller.[3] On 4 March 1639 this body of works was transferred from Stansby to Richard Bishop, the latter having acquired the rights to Every Man Out of His Humour from John Smethwick on 28 April 1638. In 1640 Bishop brought out a reprint of this collection under his imprint (hereafter I F2), with Andrew Crooke designated as the bookseller in the imprint of the general title-page. "Volume I" of the works was not printed again until 1692.

The so-called "second volume" presents the greatest confusion. An edition was printed in 1631 by John Beale for Robert Allot (hereafter II F1). The first issue of this edition had no general title-page, the leaf A1 which was later used for this purpose being a blank in the first issue. However, the individual title-pages of the three plays which make up this volume all bear the imprint "I. B. for Robert Allot . . . 1631." (The plays were Bartholomew Fair, The Staple of News, and The Devil is an Ass.) Only The Staple of News had been entered in the Stationers' Register, being transferred from John Waterson to Allot on 7 September 1631, Waterson having entered it originally on 14 April 1626, although he never printed it. Furthermore, Greg is of the opinion that the original intention of Jonson and Allot had been to produce a companion volume for I F1 and that the project failed; therefore, he feels that probably very few copies of II F1 were issued between 1631 and 1640 (III, 1075-76). In any event, Robert Allot died in 1635, his will being dated 18 October and proved on 10 November of that year.[4] Among the provisions of his will was the passing on of all his copies to his wife Mary and a gift of £20 to his "servant" Andrew Crooke on condition that he serve Mary Allot for three more years. It will be recalled that Andrew Crooke was to be a bookseller of I F2 in 1640. Further, Crooke had been Allot's apprentice, being freed on 26 March 1629,[5] but apparently staying on to work for his former master. Within a year Mary Allot was ready to remarry, but her future husband, Philip Chetwin, was a Clothworker, and Mary believed that her marriage outside the Stationers' Company invalidated her rights to retain ownership of her former husband's copyrights. On 7 November 1636 Philip Chetwin appeared before the Stationers' Court to request the transfer of "all" Allot copies to Andrew Crooke and John Legatt, a printer. The transaction was so complete that on the same day at the same court Chetwin paid £6 to clear the ownership rights of Mirror for Martyrs, ostensibly for the benefit of Crooke and Legatt. But in all the transactions of that date, the only specific title mentioned was the Mirror for Martyrs.[6] By the following spring it had been brought to the attention of the Company that the new owners had not yet entered their new property, although they were printing and/or publishing it. On 3 April 1637 the Court of the Company took the following action:

The next meeting of the Court was 27 April 1637, but for whatever reasons, Crooke and Legatt did not enter their copies until 1 July 1637. The list of titles they did enter was only sixty-one items long, far short of the number of titles Allot had owned. The missing title of greatest concern to us here is Jonson's The Devil is an Ass, and its omission is even more curious since its two companion plays from II F1, Bartholomew Fair and The Staple of News, are present in the Crooke and Legatt entry. They also failed to enter twenty-nine other titles which Allot had owned by virtue of entry in the Stationers' Register, and forty-three unentered titles of which Allot may have owned all or part.[7] Furthermore, a check of the known publications by Crooke and Legatt during 1636-38, the period complained of at the Stationers' Court on 3 April, shows that only Bayly's Practice of Piety in 1638 (STC 1618a), T. Hooker's Souls Humiliation in 1637 (STC 13728), and Sandys' Relation of a Journey also in 1637 (STC 21730) could be the offending publications. As we shall see, a legal battle eventually raged about the ownership of the immensely popular Practice of Piety, and the action of the Stationers' Court might only have been the first salvo.[8] Another work, Byfield's Marrow, which appeared in 1636 and 1640 (STC 4224 and 4225), had been jointly entered by Allot and Legatt on 3 July 1628 and could not have presented much of a legal problem. Mary Allot Chetwin also continued to publish, for between Robert Allot's death and the end of 1636 she brought out two works, Perkins, Foundation of the Christian Religion (STC 19720) and Crawshey's The Countrymans Instructor (STC 6033).

By the end of 1637 Crooke and Legatt legally controlled most of

the Allot copyrights, including at least two-thirds of the contents of II F1. However, the remainders of this edition present a problem. As I have noted earlier, Greg believes that very few copies were issued before 1640, and the ensuing publication history indicates a large stock of these remainders must have still existed at Allot's death. Who then had physical control of these copies from 1636 onwards? The answer, until now, has been that Richard Meighen controlled the stock, for he issued all three plays from Allot's remainders in one volume in 1640 (STC 14754) with a general title-page, the formerly blank A1, the imprint of which read simply: "LONDON, | Printed for Richard Meighen, | 1640." (II F2). Greg's opinion is "that Meighen owned the stock of the three plays [because] . . . in 1653 and 1656 his widow and successors were advertising The Devil is an Ass separately" (III, 1077). Meighen had been involved in the publication of I F1 in 1616 and it was not at all improbable that some unknown private arrangement had been worked out with Robert Allot, or Mary Allot, or Philip Chetwin, or Crooke and Legatt, or any combination thereof. However, there was some trouble about the ownership of The Devil is an Ass, the one play which had not been transferred, for on 6 June 1640, John Hansley, the Chaplain of the Bishop of London and a licenser of books, wrote on the last page of a 1631 (II F1) copy of the play: "Let this be entered for Andrew Crooke but not printed till I give further directions."[9] There are at least two possible explanations of this note by Hansley. First, it might simply be that Crooke and Legatt had become aware of the omission of The Devil is an Ass from their transfer entry of Allot's copies and were attempting to assure their claim to the work. This is somewhat unsatisfactory, however, for it would have been easier for them to do this by working within the Stationers' Company rather than by appealing for judgment to someone outside the Company. A second explanation is that Meighen's issue of II F2, in 1640, from the remainders of II F1, might have provoked Crooke and Legatt to press their claims of ownership of the three plays. However, because of their tardiness in entering two of the plays, and their total failure to enter the third, they felt compelled to seek some sort of outside authority to substantiate their claims.

Although both of these suppositions seem plausible on the surface, when one digs deeper one comes on an amazing and complex legal tangle which no doubt explains why anyone in any way connected with Philip Chetwin would be seeking to reaffirm his claims to publishable

property. From 1637 to at least 1639 Crooke and Legatt had been involved in a court battle with Chetwin. Chancery Bill Chas. I C30/36, Chetwynd vs. Crooke, etc. comprises three lengthy documents. Although the length of these and other Chancery documents cited later is such that it would be impossible to present a full transcription here, a summary and partial transcription of their contents will be of great interest, for they amplify the activities of Crooke, Legatt, and the Chetwins which we have, heretofore, been dealing with only by inference and guess (the formulaic "the defendant" or "this defendant" is rendered with the appropriate surname or pronoun in italic, and occasionally "the or this Complainant" is treated in a similar manner; italic in square brackets indicates conjectural readings where the manuscripts are defective).

Crooke sets out the details of his relationship with Allot, saying he served him eleven years and that on Allot's deathbed in October of 1635, he asked Crooke to serve Mary Allot for three years after his death. He did promise that "he should remaine with her. But Crooke denyeth that he did promise to the said Robert Allott that he . . . would serve Mary Allot as her servant and shoopkeeper . . . for any other certeyne tyme or that he did vndertake or promise to the said Robert Allott to Convert the stocke of the said Robert Allott into readie money or to" settle his accounts. Crooke goes on to explain that Allot left him a legacy of £20 and he was also to be paid £25 per year as salary. He also says he does not know if Allot's estate was worth £14,000 at his death, but gives his opinion that it may have been half that much. Crooke says he only collected debts at the "appointment" of Mary and that he took no printed books from the stock for his own benefit. In general, Crooke says that he ran the business much as it had been run during his eleven years of service in Robert Allot's lifetime.

"And Crooke haueing after the decease of his said late Mtr remained in the said service of Mary Allot vntill about August followinge and the Contageon of the Plague then increasinge . . . he went into the Country and whilst he remained in the Cuntry the Complte Phillip that had as Crooke was informed become a sutor to the said Mary in the way of Marriadge And before Crooke retoered to London . . . Came to Crooke in the Cuntry . . . and did perswade him to stay two or three yeares with him in case the said Marriadge should take effect then promisinge Crooke if he would there vnto assent . . . that at the end there of Crooke should haue the house and shopp wherein . . . Mary then lived with the wares that should be then therein at a reasonable rate and made many other promises to Crooke . . . pretending to him that he was out of hope the said Marriadge

should take effect vnlesse Crooke would vndertake this. Crooke answered that he . . . would be ready to doe any thinge that was fitt soe as he . . . might haue the shoppe and wares and the Coppies of books . . . after three yeares. . . ." Chetwin agreed, Crooke shortly returned to London, and Philip and Mary were to be married.

Then Mary learned that according to the rules of the Company of Stationers that "vnlesse the widdowe of a freeman of that Company doe in her widdoehood assigne ouer all her originall Coppies of bookes whereof she had the sole printinge or as printer with any other she should forfeit all Coppies [if she] did marry any but a freeman of the same Company of Staconers. But Crooke doth not remember that he did first informe . . . Mary. . . ." Crooke says it is not material since this was the case whether or not he told her [see Chancery Bill Chas. I C48/5, Chetwyn vs. Nevill]. "Crooke saith that Mary Allot therevpon intending as it seemed to have such an assignment made to John Legate, one of the defendts in the [bill of complaint] . . . [Crooke says that he] might say that it was to great a trust for one man and that it would be a disparadgment to the shoppe . . . [but he did] not say or Contend that it would be a disparadgment to the defendet [Crooke] not to be trusted as well as the said John Legate. And Crooke saith it is true that about the tyme in the Chetwins' bill . . . such a deed of Assignment [illegible] . . . Mary in her widdowehood and a little before her entermarriage with . . . Phillip Chettwinde vnto the said John Legate and Crooke but the certeyne date there of he doth not remember." Crooke says that all the details of the "trust" were set out in the deed of assignment but if any copies of it exist they are in Chetwin's custody. Shortly after the signing and sealing of the deed Philip and Mary married. After the marriage Crooke and Legatt "did become interessed in the estate of the said . . . Mary and of the Coppies soe intrusted in the said John Legate and Crooke . . . and Crooke denyeth that he did refuse to make any accompting . . . concerninge the estate . . . [and Mary] held her selfe satisfied. And Crooke saith that after the said Assignment made and the Complts entermarriage he did refuse to serve the Complts for the tearme of three yeares as they desired vnlesse that he be [assured] he should haue the said house and shoppe and all the stocke of books that should be then remaininge and all the originall coppies and right of printing them as the said Phillip Chetwinde had at first promised. . . . Crooke saith that . . . Phillip Chetwinde and Crooke about the tyme in the Complts bill menconed came to an agreement which was set downe in a certeyne booke of Articles. . . . And Crooke further saith that . . . Phillip Chetwynde in and by the said Articles did covenant and agree from tyme to tyme to furnish the said shoppe with [wares] from the king's Printing house and from the Company of Staconers and alsoe all other readie money books and other books sufficient to mainteyne the trade. And alsoe that . . . Chetwin whoe was ignorant [of the trade] should not either by himselfe or any act of his directly or indirectly sell any booke or bookes by whole sale or by retaile

to any of the company of Staconers or to any other man duringe the said time of three yeares without the consent of Crooke but should [leave all the business to the] manniaginge of Crooke as in former tyme it was vsed except only in such particular things as were specially lymitted directed and declared by the said booke of Articles. And Crooke saith there were certeyne other thinges conteyned in the said booke of Articles [on] behalfe of Chetwin to haue bin performed. . . . [And] both parties should enter into two Thousand pound bonds each to other to stand to the Arbitrament and aprisement of fower indiferent men of the trade. . . . Crooke agrees that he . . . should have the whole manageing of the whole shoppe stocke and trade and that the said Chetwin should not sell any books without the privitie of Crooke. . . ." On the morning of Crooke's return to London the Articles were signed and sealed by Crooke, Legatt, and Chetwin and copies were to be made, and Crooke adds that he never himself, or in combination with others, sought to deceive Chetwin. "But Crooke denieth that he was to haue the Mannageinge of the whole shoppe stocke and trade otherwise then he had in the widdowehood of the said Complt Mary and as a servant to both the Compllts. . . . neither had he the estate delivred vnto him or the booke by catologe or ever any chardge but what other servants had the like. . . ." After her marriage to Chetwin Mary still kept "with her one of the servants which shee formerly had in her widdoehood whoe had the keepeinge of the [accounts]. . . . And the said Complts or one of them had sould or caused to be sould [some] books and taken moneys and received debts of which they haue not so much as informed Crooke. . . . Crooke saith that the said Complte did not from tyme to tyme furnish the shoppe [with money and/or wares] . . . but hath treated with diverse about the sale of the said shoppe and books menconed in the said Articles whereby he thinketh to defeate Crooke of his said bargaine. . . ." Chetwin also sold "Dalton's iustice of pease [Michael Dalton, Country Justice, entered to the Stationers' Company 8 July 1618 and published by them in 1618, 1619, 1622, 1626, and 1635; STC 6205-6208 and 6211; editions were published for the assigns of J. More in 1630 and 1635 (STC 6209-6210) and for Richard Best in 1643 (Wing D143)] which he tooke out of the warehouse without Crooke's consent to the great prejudice of Crooke. . . . Phillip Chetwinde before christmas last past [1637?] did give fourth in speeces that Crooke should not haue his bargaine accordinge to the Articles and that none should sett a value on Crooke. . . ." Crooke then went to the Stationers' Company about the problem and made the same complaint about Chetwin. Chetwin took the "booke of Articles from the said John Legate to the end they might bee transcribed by a scrivenor and an other coppie written verbatim and hath ever since kept the same. . . . Crooke denieth that Chetwin did about christmas one Thousand sixe hundred thirty and sixe or at any other tyme require then Crooke's . . . [accounts] . . . or otherwise did the Complt require any accompt from Crooke about Christmas one Thousand sixe hundred thirty and seaven. . . ." Crooke concludes by saying he ran the shop as it had always been run and that Chetwin simply does not know how the book trade operates.

Document II [1638?]

Crooke denies that he has in any way wrongfully kept the accounts of the business, or extended credit except as Chetwin dictated (£20 limit for customers not known to him and no limit for those known to him) and Chetwin, he hears, has not really tried to bring in the debts outstanding. He denies that he "put any of ye Complts parte into his private purse or that he did omitt to enter the receipt thereof into the Complts books when he did receive any moneys when the receipt thereof was vsed to be entered into the Complts books." He also denies lending money or books which belonged to Chetwin. "Crooke doth Confesse yt he hath deliued out books to Ministrs & others vpon likinge & if disliked then to be retourned as is vsed amonge staconers but they were . . . [entered on] a Slate kept for yt purpose or some other noate of remembrance made of them. . . . Crooke denieth yt he hath . . . the shoppe at the next dore or yt he hath any shoppe at all but had formerly put them all off . . . purposolie in hope yt accordinge to the Articles he should haue had the Complts Shoppe house goods etc. where he had him an apprentice & [was] best knowne." He denies that he in any way took for himself any of Robert Allot's estate or Chetwin's, except what was rightfully his. Crooke then says that Chetwin owes him money (mostly back wages and his legacy from Allot) of over £200. He denies any connection with Miles Flesher and/or Francis Quarles (also being complained of by Chetwin in Chancery Bill Chas. I C105/28) except to sell them things as Chetwin's agent. He says he also bought paper and books from Thomas Dainty for Chetwin's use and for his own use, but he always distinguished between the two in the accounts (Chetwin is also complaining against Dainty in Chancery Bill Chas. I C28/67). Crooke says that he is informed that while drunk Chetwin said that "he would sinke all his whole estate rather then yt he would be curbed by Crooke in ye diference betweene them. . . ." Crooke also says that Chetwin has said that Crooke spent £600 of Allot's money while he was his apprentice and servant, and that Chetwin will seek his arrest on the grounds of breaking the £2,000 bond entered into with Legatt and Chetwin at the signing of the Articles. Crooke finally asks that the case be dismissed.

Document III

Crooke says that the warehouse book will show that he did not, as Chetwin has charged in his bill of complaint, "printe or cause to be printed or sould any prohibited or other booke for which Chetwin was questioned before the Lords of his Maties honble privie Counsell [illegible] the terme of three yeares to vse the Trade of a Staconer, and noe longer as in and by the said bill of Chetwin is vntruelie surmised and pretended. But Crooke saith it is true Chetwin was questioned [by the] most honble prive Counsle

about December one Thousand six hundred thirty seaven for a bold Contempt against the Company of Staconers in serchinge for bibles bonde without Geneologies which Chetwin himselfe bought [and] intended to sell againe without any direccōn of Crooke and was therefore fined about twentie shillings towards the reparacōns of St Pauls church London which he beleeves is not yet paid. . . . Chetwin received a verie greate fauor from their Lordpps in grantinge him any leave at all to vse the said trade of a Staconer for that there is a Decree in his Maties high court of Starr Chamber . . . one Thousand six hundred Thirty seaven that noe man whoe had not served seven yeares a prentice to the Trade of a booke seller should vse that trade at all. . . . Crooke saith that it is true that he did buie quanities of paper and Chardged the said Complte Phillip Chetwinde as debtor for the same . . . [but he] saith that he did not buie any paper more then what was neccesarie for the trade and spent and disposde to and for the said Compltes vse and entered in his bookes . . . and for what vse and at what price and tyme and what quantities. And Crooke saith it is likewise true that he did buie some parts in other shopps in London and Ireland but denieth it was with the Complts [money or that he did] ffurnish the said shopps or any of them with any of the Complts books other then such as the Complts had ample satisffaccon for. . . . and Crooke did leaue of one Printer Richard Badger by the direccon of . . . Phillip Chetwinde whoe was then at varience with Badger . . . [and] George Miller [Badger's partner] because he was not at leasure (as he affirmed [)] to printe the parts of a booke he had vsed to printe and the worke requiringe haste Crooke did imploy two other printers . . . both which had benie formerlie imployed to printe for the said Shopp and all ways knowne to be verie able workemen and fithfull and honest in theire profession. But Crooke vterlie denieth that he [employed them] to any such purpose as in the bill is surmised neither had Crooke any chardge to the Contrary from the Complte who knew they were imployed. . . . ever since the said Articles of Agreement were sealed the books did become in . . . Crooke's name for that Chetwin was not capable to have them [for he was] not free of the Company of Staconers and for that Crooke had agreed for them as by the said Articles of Agreement more at lardge it doth and may appeare." Crooke and Chetwin agreed together on what to print but only one half of the copies of one book were given to the printer Turner [the title is illegible in the document]. Crooke maintains that Allot had always had such an arrangement with Turner and Huggins [both of Oxford, see Madan, Volume II]. Turner paid £5 to Huggins to have sole rights to print the book and Turner paid £5 to Chetwin and printed the whole book. Crooke denies that he tampered with the working relationships in the trade which Allot had set up during his lifetime. Crooke also says he ordered impressions and disbursed money only for the benefit of Chetwin as was his trust. And regarding a "booke called Gwillimes Display of Heraldry [entered to J. Bloome 27 April 1631 and 1 June 1635; transferred to Crooke 29 May 1655; published in 1632 (STC 12502), Badger for Bloome; 1635 (STC 12503), T. Cotes for Bloome; transferred to R. Bloome 17 May 1671; published 1660 and 1664 (Wing G2219-G2220), T. R. for R. Bloome] Crooke saith it true that hee . . . did buie about fiue hundred & twenty of them and as Crooke beleeveth at fiue shillings . . . [nor did he put a] price in a booke cheeper then others were to pay for the like booke. . . . And Crooke denyeth that he did put any higher price vpon the said books . . ." and Chetwin had the accounts to look at anyway. Crooke bought other books to make sure that the business of the shop did not fail. Crooke admits he bought books without Chetwin's consent, but says it was impossible to get it because books were often called for on a demand basis and the customers would have gone to other shops to get them otherwise; Chetwin did not understand the trade anyway.

Of the 2,000 copies of Ruefuers' Trimball (?) there was apparently a three-year discount clause on unsold copies, and Crooke says he would have taken them off Chetwin's hands. Crooke denies that he put any "excessive rates" upon any books he bought for Chetwin. And Chetwin refused to barter, trade, or exchange copies. Crooke denies that he bought Norwood's Fortification [entered 12 August 1637 to Crooke; published 1639 (STC 18690), T. Cotes for A. Crooke; next published in 1679; never transferred] for Chetwin. 1,000 were done for Crooke, and Chetwin "beinge ignorant in the trade of a booke seller," Crooke was left to do as he thought fit. Crooke denies that he sold any books which were not his to sell to other stationers in London or to country booksellers. He also denies he took any money for himself from the sale of Chetwin's books. He mentions the printing of a speech before the Star Chamber and says he offered to give a full accounting of all he had done [the remainder of the document is illegible].

All these charges and counter charges make clear the sort of problems which Crooke saw in the business partnership with Chetwin. However, in a bill of complaint filed in Chancery by Chetwin in 1639 we are able to see Chetwin's side of the matter.

Document I (Chetwin's bill of complaint) [1639]

Chetwin begins by stating that Allot had many copies and the wares of a stationer and that Andrew Crooke was his servant. Four years ago Allot died [1635, thus this document is filed in 1639]. Chetwin recounts the deathbed requests made to Crooke [they are essentially those found in the other Chancery documents]. By Allot's will Mary was made sole heir, Crooke got £20 and £25 more annually for three years. Allot told Crooke to buy no new books but to print and sell his copies for Mary's use. On 9

October in the "11th year of his majesty's reign" [1635] the will was made with an estate valued at £14,000. Crooke possessed himself of the estate to manage it for Mary. Sales of books for the first year were over £2,000. When Mary and Chetwin planned to marry, Crooke told her she would forfeit all rights to original copies unless she assigned them to a stationer during her widowhood since she was marrying outside the Company [according to Chancery Bill Chas. I C48/5, Neville told her this]. Mary was going to assign all the copies to John Legatt [he had been a partner with Allot from time to time] because she trusted him, but Crooke said it was too great a trust for one man and besides it made Crooke look bad. A deed was made from Mary Allot to them and on the "ffirst day of November in the Twelveth yeare of his Mats raigne [1636] did graunt bargaine and soe assigne and sett over vnto one John Legate . . . and [Andrew Crooke] their heires and Assignes all those Coppies of bookes wch did belong to the said Robt Allott in his life tyme and all the . . . benifitt and advantage wch might happen . . . by the printing of the same Coppies in trust now the lesse for the benefitt of the said Mary and her then intended husband [Philip Chetwin]. And for the better expressing of the same trust they the said John Legate and Andrewe Crooke by theire Indenture vnder theire hands and seales . . . and Chetwin and the said Mary . . . trusting the deede of graunt and assignment did expresse and declare that for the gaine and benefitt of Chetwin and the said Mary [they] did annexe the said Coppies in a Scedule to the sd Indenture and did there by . . . Agree . . . not to printe any of the said Coppies mencōned in the said scedule, and assigned over as afore said wthout the Consent of Chetwin first had and . . . that they should giue waye from tyme to tyme for the printinge of such and soe manye of the said Coppies as Chetwin should desire to be printed [and they should] set the same to be printed to what person or persons they pleased and [Chetwin] to haue the full gaine and benefitt by the printinge there of. . . . and that he [Crooke] should not sell or cause to be sould . . . during that tyme of Three yeares directly or indirectly by himselfe or others by word or otherwise to any whole sale Chapman or retayle Customer then vseing to buye . . . [from] the said Robt Allott. . . . [and] that the said Andrewe Crooke for the tyme afore said should not directly nor directly [sic] make any greate exchanges of bookes, wthout the Consent of Chetwin. . . ." All disputes were to be arbitrated by indifferent men who were stationers. Chetwin was to view the accounts from time to time and to pay the debts, and Crooke was responsible for all losses due to servants [i.e., thefts and breakage]. Chetwin was to retain the house and shop of Allot until the end of the three-year term and then Crooke could buy it for what Allot had given, the price to be set by an appraisal by four indifferent men of the Stationers' Company, and if they could not agree, by two more [these men also seem to have been intended to appraise and set a price on the stock of books and value of original copies]. Chetwin and Crooke were to enter in £5,000 bonds. Crooke was to make a down payment of £500 and give security against the remainder and to have the entire management of the "shop and trade." The signed and sealed Articles were, by mutual consent, deposited with Legatt. But Crooke tried to defraud the Chetwins by associating himself with Miles Flesher and Francis Quarles to possess Chetwin's estate and profit from it, and Legatt was also implicated.

About Christmas 1636 Chetwin asked to see Crooke's accounts for the period of Mary's widowhood but Crooke delayed in presenting them. About Christmas 1637 he asked again and Crooke said it would be very difficult to present them. Chetwin then told Crooke to buy a new set of record books for the use of the shop, but Crooke continued to keep bad, or no, records so that a total of six [sic: only four years could have elapsed] years eventually were unaccounted for, and Chetwin says he was worried about the business. Crooke also printed, or caused to be printed, books without the consent of, or benefit of, Chetwin. Chetwin says he paid a fine to practice the trade of a stationer for a term of three years, and when he took over the business he found that Crooke and Legatt had printed the works assigned over to them on paper charged to Chetwin. Crooke caused books to be printed in London and Ireland by printers not previously uesd so that Crooke could sell them without Chetwin knowing about it; also the books which were specifically excluded from reprinting were produced in new impressions. Crooke used Chetwin's money to buy books which were "dead Comodityes and not vsually vendible as namely a book Called Gwillmes display of Heraldrye where of the said Andrewe did buy ffive hundred [copies] of the booke and in further deceipt of Chetwin did Cause the person of whom he bought the same to . . . [put the] prise of sixe shillings vpon Chetwin's Accompt . . . and bought two thousand bookes of an other person Called Rufuers Trimball [?] and did other perches of bookes whout any Consent of Chetwin and att excessiue and fayned rates. . . ." Crooke also sold to chapmen without consent and bought Norwood's Fortification, another "dead Comoditye" and paid out "readye money" for them, and had them put in the warehouse. Crooke pretended that copies bought with Chetwin's money were his own and Chetwin says that "Andrewe contrarye to his said trust did alsoe print or Cause to be printed the Coppies of a booke belonginge to one Badger by reason where of Chetwin was [found] gueltie. . . ." Crooke continued to misrepresent the accounts and "concerninge Gerrads hearball [Gerard's Hearball, entered 6 June 1597 by John Norton, transferred to R. Whitaker 26 August 1632, transferred to Adam Islip 13 July 1634; published 1597 by B. and J. Norton (STC 11750), 1633 by Islip, Norton, and Whitaker (STC 11751), 1636 by the same three (STC 11752)] & Perkinsons hearball [probably John Parkinson, Theatrum botanicum . . . or an herball, entered by Richard Cotes 3 March 1635; published in 1640 by T. Cotes (STC 19302), no edition is recorded in Wing] beinge things of grate value, and . . . Crooke

did pretend that the same were his true books and did refuse to delivd them to Chetwin." Also, Legatt apparently informed Chetwin of thousands of pounds of debts incurred by Allot. Chetwin did not know Crooke, Legatt, Thomas Dainty, Miles Flesher, and Francis Quarles had had improper financial dealings with his stock in the amount of £5,000. Then Crooke set up his own trade at the shop next door and all the customers went there. Crooke had said, when Allot died, that Crooke's estate was worth only about £500 but now it is worth £800. Crooke's associates, with his help, have claimed many debts against Chetwin and they have sued him for payment [Chetwin was apparently judged against but would not pay without specified accounts]. Finally, Chetwin asks that the Equity Decree for debt be nullified by Chancery.

Document II (the answers of Miles Flesher and Thomas Dainty to Philip and Mary Chetwin's complaints) [1639]

Flesher and Dainty begin their response by denying any knowledge of most of the matters mentioned by Chetwin in his bill against them. However, Flesher says he had sold books to Crooke worth £10, after Allot's death, for which he has been paid, and he believes they were for Chetwin and paid for with Chetwin's money, but he does not know it. Further, Chetwin owes Flesher, his partners, and other stationers £300, and has been asked to pay several times, and is now being sued. Both Flesher and Dainty have knowledge that Chetwin said in public that he would not pay unless sued. Flesher says this proceeding is a reprisal but they have not prosecuted their case.

Dainty says he sold Crooke paper, but that it was charged to Crooke's account and Dainty believes he has been paid by Crooke with Crooke's own money. Within the last few months he has sold a large amount of paper to Crooke for Chetwin's use, worth £83, and Chetwin paid for it. Chetwin has refused to pay a later bill of £100. Chetwin said he would pay on a given day but six weeks or two months later, about September, when Dainty asked for it, Chetwin said he could not pay now for "hee was to pay two hundred pounds to the Kings Printer and one hundred pounds to the Company of Staconers. But if Dainty would take Bookes for the said debt of one hundred pounds he . . . would deliver vnto Dainty all the said debt in quarto bibles printed att Cambridge [see Chancery Bill Chas. I C30/36, Document II] at six shillings per Booke and that if hee had not Bibles enough to pay the said debt in that manner That then hee would deliuer to Dainty soe many of Martins Cronicles at six shillings per Booke or the practise of piety or any of the best bookes which the said Complte had in his warehouse to make vpp the said full some of one hundred pounds." Dainty said he would rather wait for the money. Three months later [December] Dainty went to Chetwin's house; Chetwin gave him "very faire words" and said he was going to take the whole trade of bookselling into his own hands. Dainty also sold more paper and some books, through

Crooke, to Chetwin worth £87, on 18 June. The bill owed Dainty now comes to £188/1/8d. of which he has received only £14/11/6d. In Hillary Term last Dainty brought suit for recovery of debt.

It seems from all this that Crooke and Legatt, although they claimed to have some sort of legal rights to the plays of Jonson, as part of the Chetwin trust arrangement, were certainly not, in 1640, in a position to assert beyond question their rights to own or control any of the Allot copies, including the 1631 remainder sheets. The complexity and financial difficulties of the agreement(s) between the Chetwins and Crooke and Legatt were such that by 1640 it would have been necessary to proceed very cautiously in any printing or publishing venture.

In 1640 Crooke, Legatt, and John Benson were also engaged in a struggle over the control of the rest of Jonson's works, those titles which eventually made up the "third volume" of the works. John Benson had been one of Allot's apprentices too, being freed on 30 June 1631,[10] and would not only have known Crooke well from their days together in Allot's shop, but would also have been around those stationers involved in the production of the various volumes of Jonson's works (Allot, Stansby, Meighen, Bishop, etc.). On 16 December 1639 Benson entered the "Execration against Vulcan" and "Epigrams," on 18 February 1639/40 he entered "the Art of Poetry," and on 29 February 1639/40 he entered "The Masque of the Gypsies." In addition, Andrew or John Crooke and Richard Seirger, Junior, entered "The Masque of Augures," "Time Vindicated," "Neptunes Triumphs," and "Pan's Anniversary, or The Shepherds' Holiday," plus "sundry elegies and other poems by Ben. Johnson," all on 20 March 1639/40. Later in 1640 Benson did bring out a collection of these works, but in 12mo not folio. This was clearly an attempt on the part of Benson, Crooke, and others to get further rights to Jonson's works.

However, another stationer, Thomas Walkley, had apparently been privately assured the role of publisher for all the works of Jonson not in print by the time of the poet's death by his literary executor, Sir Kenelm Digby. The plots and counterplots which followed have been well traced and documented by other scholars,[11] and it should suffice here to note that Walkley started litigation on 20 January 1639/40

over the rights to the titles in the "third volume" and this legal action, along with Chetwin's Chancery actions, may have been what prompted Crooke to seek Hansley's authority for The Devil is an Ass, since it was a Jonson title which was not properly entered to him. No matter what the reason for Hansley's note, it is interesting that he prohibited only the printing of The Devil is an Ass by Crooke, not its sale or distribution, and said nothing of the other two 1631 plays.

The answer to the question of who controlled the 1631 stock actually lies three years beyond the 1640 publication date. On 4 December 1643 the following item appears in the Court Book of the Stationers' Company:

"Yeares" may not be the most precise term we could wish for, but the time of seizure must have been in 1639 or 1640. Furthermore, the matter clearly concerns the 1631 remainders, "printed in the life tyme of Mr Allot," and is concerned with only one play, the untransferred The Devil is an Ass. We also have discovered a further reason for Crooke's rights in this play being certified by Hansley, to counter a similar document apparently asserting Chetwin's rights from Sir Henry Herbert, Master of the Revels.[13] Finally, we now know where the remainder stock of at least one of the 1631 plays was: first with Chetwin, then with the Stationers' Company, and then, if the Company is to be believed, back to Chetwin.

We are also fortunate that some of the documents of the law case mentioned in the Stationers' Court Book on 4 December 1643 survive. Strangely, the accused is not the Company or Downes and Mead, but Abraham Colt, and a summary of the contents of the case follows:

If we are to believe the Company, all the seized copies were returned to Chetwin, and it appears that his suits in Chancery were

over shortages in the stock after he had gotten it back from them, a shortage he apparently wishes to have made good by the accusations of trespass in the original seizure. Indeed, we know a shortage did develop in 1641, for in that year a second issue of II F2 appeared with The Staple of News and Bartholomew Fair still being made up of the 1631 remainders, but The Devil is an Ass being a reprint dated 1641. If when the seized 1631 stock was returned these were mixed with 1641 reprints then most of the problems which Greg indicated vanish. If the available copies of The Devil is an Ass were augmented, first by a reprinting in 1641, and then by the return of a number of seized 1631 copies, then it is not at all strange that so many 1631 copies survived into the 1650s, and the printing of the 1641 edition was necessitated by the Company's seizure and holding of the 1631 copies. That Crooke could have had a copy, or copies, of the 1631 edition to submit for license should not strike us as strange, for Crooke had been first apprenticed to Allot, then employed by Allot, and finally became the manager of the Allot-Chetwin shop, and could easily have gotten many copies of the play.

Richard Meighen's part in the venture is a little more doubtful, but it seems fairly clear that he was working in concert with Chetwin (the reference to the Company's refusal of his attempt to enter The Devil is an Ass in Downes' and Meade's Chancery answer shows this: Chas. I C19/23, Document II), who, being prevented from publishing under his own name, may simply have used Meighen as front man. However, by 1653 Chetwin was able to issue works with his name appearing in the imprint and he continued publishing openly until his death.

The remainder of Jonson's works which had not been collected in either I F1 or II F1 were published in folio in 1641 (III F1), probably by Thomas Walkley. There is no indication that Walkley was connected with any of the persons responsible for any of the other folios, and there is documentary evidence that he was in direct conflict with the combine of Crooke and Benson.[14] However, Walkley's publication, if indeed it is his, was clearly timed to capitalize on the appearance of I F2 and II F2 in 1640 and 1641. This was so successful that some of the oversupply of copies of The Devil is an Ass found their way, by whatever routes, into copies of III F1 (Greg, III, 1079-81).

The omission of The Devil is an Ass from Crooke and Legatt's transfer entry of 1637 had the ultimate effect of dissolving II F2 as a textual unit. By 1658 Walkley had not only successfully asserted his rights to all the works which appeared in III F1 but he had also gotten the rights to The Devil is an Ass, and the total contents of II F2 were now owned by Walkley and Crooke and Legatt, and the former publisher was in an open legal combat with the latter two. Walkley apparently made good his claims, for he entered on 17 September 1658 the entire contents of volume III of Jonson's works and The Devil is an Ass. On 20 November 1658 Walkley sold and transferred all the works he had entered on the preceding 17 September to Humphrey Moseley. Moseley continued to sell off the stock of III F1 during the 1650s and 1660s, and Andrew Crooke continued to sell the remaining stock of I and II F2 (Greg, III, 1082). No matter what the advertisements of these two may seem to imply, no further printing of any of the three volumes of Jonson's works occurred. In 1667 Moseley's widow sold the rights to the third volume to Henry Herringman. Herringman also must have obtained Crooke's rights to volumes I and II, though no evidence of the transfer has been preserved, for in 1692 Herringman published the first complete collected edition of Jonson's works (F3). However, by 1692 II F2 had been totally obliterated for the title-page reads: "THE | WORKS | OF | BEN JONSON, | Which were formerly Printed in Two Volumes, | are now Reprinted in One. | To which is added | A COMEDY, | CALLED THE | NEW INN." It seems clear that the two volumes referred to are the first and third volumes, and the second volume, which had been issued in various states and at various times for almost sixty years, which had been divided in ownership, and of which excess copies of one-third of it had been printed, simply was forgotten by

succeeding publishers. Herringman must have thought of Bartholomew Fair and The Staple of News as being part of volume one and The Devil is an Ass as being part of the third ("second") volume.

This rather complicated textual history may be displayed graphically as follows:

The chart above indicates the peculiar situation of The Devil is an Ass in the textual tradition and further indicates that the texts of the greatest authority are, no matter the confusion, litigation, and peculiarities, just those we would expect, the first folio editions of each "volume." However, the history of the Jonson folios also demonstrates two other principles which, although they are not new to bibliographical study, have seldom been documented to this extent. The first principle is that often behind apparently clear and innocent transfer entries in the Stationers' Register lie complex and uncertain provisos, trust agreements, "Articles," and the like, and that if any difficulties arose concerning these arrangements then there may well be a trail of legal disputes in the records of the Company and in the public records. The second principle is that the Company of Stationers was most vigorous in asserting its rights to govern the operation of the whole book trade. The disputes over the control of "volume II" are almost completely a matter of Crooke and Legatt, the proper stationers, versus Philip Chetwin, the improper Clothworker. It is worthy of note that in the Chancery cases this distinction between stationer and non-stationer is not only brought out over and over, but is used by Crooke and the other defendants almost as a piece of evidence. Philip Chetwin, bellicose and litigious though he might be, was forced eventually to submit and fine for permission to engage in the book trade, and Walkley was very careful to "process" all his Jonson titles through the Register before selling them. As we have seen, even an insider like Crooke was forced into considerable difficulties because of his unfortunate failure properly to enter The Devil is an Ass.

Notes