 | |  |
IT HAS LONG BEEN KNOWN THAT COPIES OF THE 1609 quarto of Shakespeare's Troilus and Cressida differ: some copies have a title-page on which it is stated that the play '. . . was acted by the Kings Maiesties | ſeruants at the Globe' whereas in other copies this title-page has been can-celled[1] and replaced by a half-sheet signed a. The new title-page (a1) changed the original 'THE | Hiſtorie of Troylus | and Creſſeida' to 'THE | Famous Hiſtorie of | Troylus and Creſſeid', deleted the statement about performance at the Globe, and added in its place 'Excellently expressing the beginning | of their loues, with the conceited wooing | of Pandarus Prince of Licia.' The remaining portion of the title-page (from 'Written by William Shakeſpeare' on) was printed from the standing type of the original title-page.[2] The second page of the cancellans (a2) contains an address to the reader (concluding on a2v) in which the play is said to be 'a new | play, neuer stal'd with the Stage, | neuer clapper-clawd with the palmes | of the vulger'. Except for these differences all copies are identical; hence those
The question of exactly when and how the half-sheet signed a was printed has never been investigated,[7] nor has a satisfactory explanation why some copies of the book appear with and some without the second title-page been advanced.[8] Critics, indeed, have seemed content with the implicit assumption that some copies do not contain the cancel since they were sold at a time prior to the printing of the cancellans half-sheet.
It is the purpose of this article to show first that the half-sheet signed a was very probably printed along with the final half-sheet M of the text as a pre-publication cancellans, and secondly to offer a plausible explanation why in some copies the cancel was not effected.
Fredson Bowers[9] has shown that bibliographical evidence can often be used to prove that different parts of a book were or were not printed on a full sheet and subsequently cut in half. In a book having a collation like 4°, A2 B-M4 N2, with A2 containing the title-page and preliminary matter and the text ending on N1 or N2, the possibility that A2 and N2 were printed together on a full sheet has been recognized for some time. Indeed, it has come to be accepted as the normal method of printing in such circumstances. But a quarto half-sheet gathering can also be printed by half-sheet imposition, the four type-pages being imposed together and a full sheet printed and perfected by this same forme, the two halves later being cut apart to provide identical half-sheets. Dr. Bowers shows that it is dangerous to assume that two half-sheet gatherings appearing in the same book were printed together unless running-title evidence confirms this assumption, and he demonstrates that when the running-titles from only one forme used to print a preceding full sheet of text are used in both formes of the final half-sheet, this half-sheet must have been printed by itself by half-sheet imposition. If the running-titles from both formes used to print a preceding full sheet of text appear in the two-leaf gathering, the half-sheet was not printed by itself by half-sheet imposition but instead with something else.
Twelve running-titles contained in three skeleton-formes were used in printing Troilus and Cressida, from which two skeleton-formes were drawn to print gathering L. In inner L, the following running-titles appear: L1v (IV), L2 (IX), L3v (III), and L4 (VIII). In outer L, the following running-titles appear:
First, it will be remembered that the lower portion of the title-page contains standing type from the original title-page. This suggests, although it does not prove, that the cancelling title-page was printed soon after the original title-page (A1). At any rate, the interval of time between the printing of the original title-page and the cancelling title-page was so short that the type from the original title-page had not been distributed.
Second, buttressing the typographical evidence for the relatively continuous printing of the cancel with the body of the book is the evidence of the paper. Sheets A-M consistently contain a watermark of a gauntlet with the third finger surmounted by a cross. Since in certain copies where a watermark appears in the a half-sheet, the watermark is invariably this same gauntlet, the inference follows that the cancel was printed on the same lot of paper Eld bought for the rest of the book, and as a consequence that it cannot be separated by any very long period of time from the printing of the text sheets. Indeed, this evidence, as well as that of the standing type from the title, may be more narrowly applied, for both would ideally obtain
Thirdly, the evidence supplied by the type-page measurements supports the belief that a 2 and M2 were printed together. If a 2 were printed along with M2, using the two skeletons from L, the measurements of the type-pages in a should conform with the measurements of the type-pages of L. If the measurements do not coincide, the inference would be that a 2 and M2 were not printed together. The measurements do coincide, and therefore the a type-pages seem to have been composed in the same printers' stick used for the text so that they would fit without adjustment of the furniture into the skeleton-formes used to print L and M.[13]
In view of the bibliographical evidence that has been presented,
it seems more than probable that a
2 was
printed
simultaneously with M2, the type-pages having been
imposed as is
indicated below:
If this theory of how a 2 was printed is accepted, the time at which it was decided to cancel the original title-page can be determined with some precision. The decision must have been made after outer A had been printed but before either forme of M had been printed. 11 1/2 sheets intervene between outer A and M. If only one press were used and if the edition ran to the maximum 1250-1500 copies, we may estimate that L was completed approximately 15 working days after printing on A began.[14]
We must now attempt to explain why three of the extant copies contain the uncancelled title-page (A1) whereas in eleven copies the cancel of A1 has been effected and a 2 substituted. (The Yale Elizabethan Club copy is, of course, aberrant and would align itself with the eleven copies in which the cancel was made.) Although it is dangerous when dealing with only fifteen copies to make much of percentages, the three surviving copies in which the cancel has not been substituted suggest that in the original edition possibly a sizable number of copies existed in this state.
Several hypotheses must be considered before coming to the explanation I think to be the correct one. Troilus and Cressida was printed by George Eld for two publishers, Richard Bonion and Henry Walley.[15] It is possible, though perhaps unlikely, that one of the two publishers definitely preferred the original title-page with its reference (rightly or wrongly) to performance at the Globe by the King's Men. If so, he could have directed his binder to ignore the cancel in the copies allotted to him. Or—much less likely—both publishers, acting jointly, may have deliberately allowed some copies of the book without the cancel to be issued, holding back the cancelled copies with the expectation that the new title-page and preface would stimulate sales at a later date. This particular speculation should not be taken too seriously, for it is unlikely that the publishers, having gone to the trouble and expense of the cancel as a part of continuous printing of the quarto, would deliberately issue copies without that cancel. Moreover, there is no evidence that the altered form of the title would have stimulated sale.
Unless we are willing to suppose that one or both of the publishers deliberately issued some copies without the cancel, we must look elsewhere for an explanation. Our knowledge of early 17th-century binding practices is, unfortunately, limited; but it seems probable that the answer to our problem lies here.[16] Most of the copies of Troilus and Cressida were correctly
The most recent attempt to define issue and variant state reaches the general conclusion that there are only two major classes of reissue: (1) post-publication alterations in the publishing or selling arrangements as indicated by a cancellans title-leaf; (2) post-publication alterations or additions in the book accompanied by or confined to a cancellans title-leaf to assist in stimulating sales of old sheets. Additions or alterations made to constitute what may be called ideal copy should be considered as 'states,' whether made before or after publication. Among such 'states' are specifically placed cancellans titles "printed as part of an original sheet (whether of the preliminaries or of the text) to perform the same function as a press-variant title."[18]
If a 2 and M2 were indeed printed simultaneously, and if the copies containing A1 but lacking cancellans a 2 are the result of binding error or accident to some of the half-sheets and not demonstrable as a distinct publishing effort, the implications
But the classification, while important, is after all basically only one of estimating accurately the true conditions of printing and publication. The bibliographical evidence which can be brought to bear to assess the cancel in the first quarto of Troilus and Cressida indicates very strongly that the alteration in the title and the consequential printing of the address to the reader were decided on and manufactured before any copies of the book could be issued. No collateral evidence exists which would lead to a conclusion that intentional separate and simultaneous issues were made of copies in the two forms: reissue is, of course, a practical impossibility owing to the circumstances of printing.[20] If the bibliographical evidence is accepted as a sufficient demonstration, we must alter our views materially concerning the time at which this cancel was printed and, to some extent, the circumstances which dictated it.
| | |