University of Virginia Library


25

Page 25

The 'Second Issue' of Shakespeare's Troilus and Cressida, 1609
by
Philip Williams, Jr.

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


26

Page 26
having the original title-page are usually considered 'first issue' and those in which the cancel has been effected, 'second issue.'[3] Three copies of the quarto having the original title-page but lacking a 2 are extant.[4] One copy contains both the original title-page and a 2.[5] Eleven copies in which the original title-page has been cancelled and replaced by the half-sheet a 2 are extant.[6]

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.


27

Page 27

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:


28

Page 28
L1 (X), L2v (I), L3 (VII), and L4v (II). Two running-titles appear in M2:(X) on M1 and (IV) on M1v. It will be noted that the running-title from L1v (inner forme) appears on M1v (inner forme), and the running-title from L1 (outer forme) appears on M1 (outer forme). The final two-leaf M gathering of Troilus and Cressida cannot therefore have been printed separately by half-sheet imposition. Since M was not printed in this manner, it is necessary to assume that another half-sheet was printed along with it.[10] I suggest there is strong evidence for believing that this half-sheet was a 2, printed in the same formes with half-sheet M2.

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


29

Page 29
if a and M had been printed in the same formes. Under such conditions it is ordinarily found that one of the two separated half-sheets in any single copy will contain a watermark and the other will not. In the observed copies, this is what we find; for example, in the Folger copy the watermark appears in a but not in M, whereas in the Yale Elizabethan Club copy the watermark is in M but not in a.[11] Thus the watermarks demonstrate at least that the printing of a could not have been long delayed after the completion of the book, and their evidence is not inconsonant with the hypothesis that both a and M were printed in the same full sheet.[12]

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]


30

Page 30

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:

illustration

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.


31

Page 31

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


32

Page 32
bound: a 2 was added and A1 cancelled. But it is probable that in some copies, through accident or error,[17] the cancel was not made.

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


33

Page 33
are clear: the so-called 'first' and 'second issues' of Troilus and Cressida are not separate issues at all; and they should therefore be treated as W. W. Greg treats the similar case of The Dumbe Knight (1608),[19] that is, as variant states of only one issue.

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.

Notes

 
[1]

Until H. P. Stokes, in his introduction to the Griggs facsimile (Shakespeare Quarto Facsimiles, No. 13 [1886]) demonstrated that the title-page with the reference to performance at the Globe was earlier, it had generally been held that the a title-page was first. The editors of the Cambridge edition (1863-66) had accepted the erroneous order.

[2]

William Aldis Wright, The Cambridge Shakespeare, 2nd. ed. (1892), IV, viii, noted that the lower portion of both title-pages had been printed from the same type.

[3]

W. W. Greg, A Bibliography of the English Printed Drama to the Restoration (1939), No. 279, so considers them, as does Henrietta Bartlett, A Census of Shakespeare's Plays in Quarto, 1594-1709 (1939), p. 121. R. B. McKerrow, An Introduction to Bibliography for Literary Students (1927), p. 177, suggested that in books like Troilus and Cressida (which he cites) the new matter might constitute merely a cancel and not a separate issue.

[4]

British Museum, Huntington, and Rosenbach.

[5]

In the Yale Elizabethan Club copy, half-sheet a is inserted before the original title-page. It is impossible now to determine whether this represents the original state of this copy or a later sophistication. The copy is the Daniel-Huth-Cochran one, bound in morocco with Daniel's monogram. See Bartlett, op. cit., p. 121.

[6]

Bartlett, op. cit., pp. 121-22, lists twelve copies, assigning two to The Folger Shakespeare Library (nos. 1217 and 1218). No. 1217 is not at present in The Folger Shakespeare Library, and Dr. Giles E. Dawson, Curator of Rare Books, writes me that a search of the library's records and of Mr. Folger's papers reveals no evidence that Mr. Folger or the library ever owned this copy. I have been unable to locate it elsewhere. Miss Bartlett describes it (p. 121) as "The Quaritch (purchased privately, 1919, sold, 1920, £1500) copy. Bound in morocco."

[7]

Neither A. W. Pollard, Shakespeare Folios and Quartos, (1909) nor Peter Alexander, "Troilus and Cressida, 1609," The Library, 4th ser., IX (1928), 267-86, attacked the problem. E. K. Chambers, William Shakespeare (1930), I, 442, suggested that Bonion and Walley (the publishers) decided to cancel the original title-page when they realized that the play had never been produced on the public stage. Chambers presents the generally accepted theory as to why the cancel was printed but (like Alexander and Pollard) does not consider the how or when (save for the general conclusion that at some unspecified time after the original title-page had been printed, the publishers decided to effect the cancel).

[8]

William Aldis Wright, op. cit., VI, vii-viii, suggested that "copies with this [the original] title-page were first issued for the theater, and afterwards those with the new title-page and preface for the general reader." This highly doubtful speculation has not met with general approval.

[9]

"Running-Title Evidence for Determining Half-Sheet Imposition," Papers of the Bibliographical Society, University of Virginia, I (1948-49), 199-202.

[10]

It seems most improbable that the printer would impose an inner forme with one page of letterpress and three blank pages, and make up a similar imposition in another skeleton for the outer forme. Since in some copies of Troilus and Cressida blank leaf M2 is preserved conjugate with M1, such printing would have given a blank half-sheet fold which has always been removed. This possibility need not be considered seriously.

[11]

This condition would be found if the two half-sheets in individual copies had been cut apart from the same full sheet, or if they had been cut apart in series at some prior time but bound in fairly consistent order with this earlier operation. Dr. Bowers has kept records of Restoration play quartos and informs me that when running-titles indicate two half-sheets were printed together, the vast majority of copies will not have clashing watermarks (or their absence) in the two separated parts. The evidence is not invariable but is strongly weighted in this direction.

[12]

If, on further examination, copies are found to contain watermarks in both a and M (or lack watermarks in both), I do not think this would seriously discount the other evidence afforded by the watermarks.

[13]

The measurement of the full type-pages in L and M is 157(164) x 87 mm. The horizontal measurement may vary slightly from 86 to 88 mm. in other sections of the book, but in L and M it is 87 mm. for all pages, the measure found in half-sheet a. Eld did not invariably use an 87 mm. measure in printing play quartos. In three other quartos printed by him at about this time, the following measures are used: The Divils Charter (1607): 94 mm.; The Puritaine (1607): 92 mm.; and Ram Alley (1611): 90 mm. It would seem therefore more than coincidence that the horizontal type-page measurement of the type-pages in a 2 should coincide with the measurement of the type-pages in L and M.

[14]

If two presses were used, the time would be cut approximately in half. If fewer than the maximum copies were printed, the time would also be somewhat less, but it is unlikely that the edition was smaller than 1250 copies. Any decision about the number of presses involved in printing this quarto must await further investigation now in process.

[15]

Neither Bonion nor Walley was a printer; both were booksellers and publishers. Walley's shop was 'The Harts Horn in Foster Lane' from 1608 until 1655. Bonion's shop was 'The Spread Eagle near the great North Door of St. Paul's Church' from 1607 until 1610. See R. B. McKerrow, A Dictionary of Printers and Booksellers, 1557-1640 (The Bibliographical Society, 1910), pp. 42-43, and H. R. Plomer, A Dictionary of Booksellers and Printers, 1641-67 (The Bibliographical Society, 1907), p. 188.

[16]

In his account of the duties of the warehouse-keeper, Moxon describes activities that are more closely related to the binding than the printing of books. His account probably applies to the large post-Restoration printing establishments and may not accurately describe conditions that prevailed 75 years earlier in the smaller Elizabethan shops. According to Moxon, the job printer delivered his work to the bookseller with the sheets 'gathered,' 'collated,' 'folded,' 'pressed,' and thus ready to be sewn. However, it seems more likely, according to fragmentary evidence for the earlier period, that Eld would have delivered unfolded sheets tied up in bundles according to signature. Nothing is said in Moxon's account about marking pages to be cancelled or about cutting a sheet in half that contained two separate half-sheets. Eld may or may not have cut the aM sheets; the surviving can-cellanda are not marked in any way.

[17]

One may speculate about possible accidents and errors even though in this case it seems impossible to demonstrate that one or another occurred. If Eld divided the aM sheets before delivery, one bundle of a half-sheets may have been overlooked and thus never delivered to the publishers; or he may have delivered too few a half-sheets to one of the two publishers; or, while stored in a ware-house, one bundle of a half-sheets may have been damaged; or the publishers may have failed to include a half-sheets with one lot of sheets sent to the binder. If the aM sheets were uncut when they reached the binders, an error in arranging the sheets in 'heaps' for 'gathering' or some other careless mistake may have been made. One speculation, for which there is no evidence whatsoever, could be made that copies lacking a 2 represent printer's 'copy books.' See F. R. Johnson, "Printers 'Copy Books' and the Black Market in the Elizabethan Book Trade," The Library, 5th. ser., I (1946), 97-105.

[18]

Fredson Bowers, "Criteria for Classifying Hand-Printed Books as Issues and Variant States," Papers of the Bibliographical Society of America, XLI (1947), 291, n. 16. The reasons for this classification are elaborated in his Principles of Bibliographical Description (Princeton, 1949). Pre-publication changes to a book, machined as a part of its continuous printing, cannot constitute reissue except under the most unusual circumstances and can be classified as 'separate issue' only if it can be demonstrated that copies in each form were intentionally sold as a unit. Otherwise, variant forms resulting from pre-publication printing constitute only 'variant state.'

[19]

The Dumbe Knight, printed by Nicholas Okes in 1608, parallels Troilus and Cressida in many respects. (See W. W. Greg, A Bibliography of the English Printed Drama to the Restoration, No. 277). In this book, for which Greg gives the collation 4°, A-I4 K2, the original title-page appears as A2 in some copies (A1 and A2v blank). A3 contains an address to the reader, and the text begins on A4. In other copies, A2 has been cancelled and replaced by a new title-page, the only significant difference between it and the original title-page being the change of 'historicall' to 'pleasant' and the addition of the author's name. The lower portion of this cancelling title-page is printed from the same setting of type as the original title-page. Greg lists two copies having the original title-page only, three in which the cancel has been effected, and two in which both titles are present. He states that the cancelling title-page was almost certainly printed as K2, for in the Folger copy the cancellans and K1, though now separate, can be seen to have been conjunct. If the cancelling title-page were printed as K2, there were probably as many copies of it as of K1, i.e. the number of copies of the edition. One is naturally led to ask why the cancel was not carried out in all copies, since the ratio between surviving copies suggests that in a relatively large number the cancel was not made. Yet copies having the uncan-celled title-page probably represent a binder's error, as in Troilus and Cressida.

[20]

Indeed, if an accident happened to a pile of half-sheets so that copies lacking the cancel are not simply binders' errors, copies with the original title were probably the last lots to be sold and would have been placed on the market in this form not by intention but by necessity.


34

Page 34