University of Virginia Library

Search this document 


expand section 
expand section 
expand section 
expand section 
expand section 
expand section 
expand section 
expand section 
expand section 
expand section 
expand section 
expand section 
collapse section 
expand section3. 
collapse section4. 
expand section5. 
expand section7. 
expand section8. 
expand section9. 
expand section10. 
expand section11. 
expand section12. 
expand section13. 

expand section 


Page 256

Robert D. Horn

The only modern edition of Addison's poetic works which has any authority is that of Guthkelch. In spite of the many merits of this production, the editing of The Campaign,[1] the poem which marked the turning point in Addison's career, is based on an erroneous bibliography of the early editions (also found in the Cambridge Bibliography of English Literature); and the text is not contrived according to present-day standards of editorial practice. Accepting Tickell's text in the posthumous folio edition of Addison's Works (1721), Guthkelch assumes that the variants from the first edition of 1705 made their initial appearance in the edition of 1708 with the Latin translation. This assumption posits a delay of four years between the first appearance of the poem and Addison's revision of his text. In fact, no such delay occurred, for the poem was revised for the first and only time in the third London edition of 1705.

It is the purpose of this study to present a corrected bibliography of the critically important early editions of The Campaign, and to call attention to certain significant bibliographical features affecting our estimate of the authority of the texts.

The sequence of editions is as follows:

  • 1. First London Edition (advertised October-November, published December 14, 1704.[2]) [within double rules] THE | CAMPAIGN, | A | POEM, | To His GRACE the | DUKE of MARLBOROUGH. | [rule] | By Mr. ADDISON. | [rule] | --- Rheni pacator & Istri. | Omnis in hoc Uno variis discordia cessit | Ordinibus; lœtatur Eques, plauditque Senator, | Votaque Patricio certant Plebeia favori. | Claud. de Laud. Stilic. | [rule] | LONDON, | Printed for Jacob Tonson, within Grays-Inn Gate next | Grays-Inn Lane. 1705.
  • 20, [A]2 B-G2 [$1 signed], 14 leaves, pp. [4] 1-23 [24] (pp. in sq. bkts. centered) [variant: misprinting 13 as 31]. A1: hf. tit. [rule] | 'THE | CAMPAIGN, | A | POEM.' | [rule]. A1v: blank. A2: title (verso blank). B1 (p. 1): HT and text (cap2), ending on G2


    Page 257
    (p.23) [rule] | 'FINIS.' | [rule]. G2v: 'Books Printed for Jacob Tonſon at Grays-Inn Gate.' (cap3), 15 items. Notes: Type-page (leaded) sig. D1, 247(271) X 153 mm. In sheet B the measure is 149-150 mm. Paper watermarked DP. Large-paper (w/m star), NN (Berg), measures 14 5/8" X 9 1/8". Of 19 known copies, only one—in the possession of the writer—contains the mispagination on p. 13. The "Luttrell" inscription on the CSmH copy is highly doubtful, the handwriting being suspect. The pagination brackets are uniform in size and measure 9-10 mm. tall. On the evidence of the ICU copy, which has sheets B and D from the second edition, late copies sold had underprinted sheets made up from the second printing.
  • 2. Second London Edition The title is in the same typesetting as the first edition except for the insertion between the Latin quotation and the imprint: [rule] | The Second Edition. | [rule] | LONDON, | ..... Collation and contents are as in the first edition except that sig. G2v is blank. Notes: Although the title-page was printed from the standing type of the first edition, the half-title was reset. The type of the half-title is of the same setting as that in the head-title. The top rule in the half-title measures 154 mm. (as against a measurement of 149 mm. in the first edition). A full leaded type-page in sheets B-C and F-G measures 250(273) X 155 mm., which is also the measurement of the pages in the outer forme of sheet E, sigs. E1.2v. Inner E, sigs. E1v.2, has a measure of 161 mm. The full type-page in sheet D measures 247(271) X 153 mm. Sheet D is printed from the same DP watermarked paper as the first edition but the other sheets from a somewhat lighter stock with an indistinct watermark which may be ML. The square brackets about the pagination of sigs. B1-D2v (pp. 1-12) measure 9-10 mm. as in the first edition, but those in sigs. E1-G2 (pp. 13-23) are smaller and measure 7 mm.
  • 3. Third London Edition. [within double rules] THE | CAMPAIGN, | [etc. as in first edition] | Claud. de Laud. Stilic. | Omnium effuſa lætitia eſt & gratis cogitationibus & ſermonibus revocata. | Esse aliquam in terris Gentes quœ suâ impensa, suo labore ac peri- | [4 lines] | Liv. Hiſt. Lib. 33. | [rule] | The Third Edition. | LONDON, | Printed for Jacob Tonson, within Grays-Inn Gate | next Grays-Inn Lane. 1705. 20, [A]2 [B]2 C-F2 [$1 signed], 12 leaves, pp. [4] 1-20 (pp. in sq. bkts. centered). A1: hf. tit. (verso blank). A2: title (verso blank). B1:HT and text (cap2), ending on F2v (p. 20) with 'FINIS.' Notes: Since there is no possibility of mixed sheets with this edition,


    Page 258
    technical details are omitted. Paper: no w/m, or faint "W.C." Guthkelch errs in stating that the two new quotations appear first in the 1710 pirated edition.
  • 4. First Scots Edition. THE | CAMPAIGN, | A | POEM | TO | His Grace the Duke | OF | MARLBOROUGH | [row of 4 crown type-orn.] | [rule] | EDINBURGH | Reprinted According to the London Copy M.DCC.V. 40, A-B4 [$2 signed, A2, B1 in italic], 8 leaves, pp. [1]-[2] 3-16 (pp. in parens centered). A1: title (verso blank). A2 (p. 3): HT and text (cap2) ending on B4v (p. 16) with 'FINIS.' Notes: Collation, with special reference to the peculiarity of the "British" and "British" forms discussed below, establishes that this edition was set from the first London edition. Owing to the speed with which the second London edition seems to have been prepared, whether the Edinburgh immediately preceded or succeeded it is impossible to determine. This Scots edition has no independent authority and is described here only because of its rarity and to complete the roster of 1705 editions.

The three 1705 London editions are all that can possess textual authority, but the precise assignment of authority to all details rests in part on the bibliographical evidence of their printing. In the opinion of the writer, the first edition was hurried to completion in order to be put on sale on the day of Marlborough's return to London. In addition to the evidence which has been cited elsewhere,[3] one may offer signs of haste in the book itself, for at least two and possibly more compositors were concerned in setting its few pages. A marked feature of the spelling in sheets B-C is the invariable form "Brittish," "Brittain," "Brittania," and "Britton," whereas in D-G are consistently found the forms "British," "Britain," and so on. We have, then, what seems to be simultaneous two-section printing of this book in the respective parts A-C and D-G. And if inferences are valid from the University of Chicago copy, which contains sheets B and D from the second edition, it is possible that the edition was enlarged after the type of these first-printed sheets had been distributed.[4]

That a very brief interval elapsed between the printing of the first and second editions is suggested by the fact that standing type from the first-edition titlepage was utilized in the second, although all other type had been distributed as printed. Very considerable haste in the preparation of this second edition is


Page 259
shown by bibliographical analysis of its characteristics. A major break in the book between sheets D and E, indicated by the change in the size of the headline square brackets, shows that at least two-section printing with two presses obtained. The separate setting, at a minimum, of sheets F-G is indicated by the use of a very small-font possessive "s" following words set in small caps, which differs from the practice shown in sheet D of using a small-cap "s" as throughout the first edition. This difference is buttressed by the setting of "Marlbro" in F-G without a circumflex, although the form "Marlbrô" is found in D (the name does not appear in B-C).

Sheet E, which may be taken as beginning the second section, is irregular because of the unique wide measure used to set its inner forme. The two measures used in the sheet demonstrate composition by formes in order to begin printing with the least possible delay. The compositor of inner E differs from that of sheet D in dropping the circumflex in "Marlbro," but he also differs from F-G in using a small-cap possessive "s" for words set in small caps. That sheet E was not the only sheet to be set by formes may perhaps be indicated by a certain feature of the typography. In the first edition the cases contained a mixture of two kinds of commas, one perceptibly thinner than that proper for the font. These mixed commas are found in the second edition in both formes of sheet B, in inner C and inner D. Only the regular commas which go with the font are found in outer C and D and in all formes of E-G.

If the inference is correct that in the first edition sheet D, and possibly B as well, was underprinted by accident or by reason of a subsequent enlargement of edition-sheet, then the fact that in the second edition sheet D, uniquely, was reset with the same measure as the first edition and printed on first-edition paper throughout very likely indicates that this sheet preceded all others through the press as a separate unit in order to complete the edition-sheet for the first edition.[5] The second edition may, therefore, have been sent to the presses in sections as A-C, D, E, F-G, or possibly as A-C, D, E-G. If, then, typesetting for the reprint began and was pushed forward rapidly before the complete exhaustion of first-edition sheets, we may combine this evidence with the standing type of the first-edition title-page to suggest that sale of the first edition was brisk and that no very great time elapsed between the printing of the two editions.[6]

Collation of the text of the second against that of the first edition discloses no substantive variants, indicative of revision, but only the scattering of


Page 260
punctuation and capitalization variants which are encountered in any resetting. The number of compositors employed resulted in varying degrees of exactitude with which copy was followed. The relatively short time between the printing of the first and second editions, combined with the absence of substantive revision, makes it extremely unlikely that Addison had anything to do with the copy for the second edition or that any of its variants have authority.

This point is of considerable importance for the minutiae of the text, for since the revised third edition was set from a copy of the second, the vast majority of the alterations from the first in the "accidentals" were retained. That by the retention in a substantively revised edition of compositors' variants Addison automatically gave them authority and his approval is a contention that would be utterly unsupported by modern views of the transmission of texts.[7] On the other hand, the changes made in the third edition from the accidentals of its copy-text, the second, may be compositorial or may reflect Addison's markings, or both: that is a decision for an editor in each specific case. Otherwise, only the "accidentals" of the first edition, set from manuscript, have authority.

The substantive revisions in the third edition are recorded by Guthkelch, but with the erroneous assumption, previously noted, that they originated in the 1708 edition. At least sixteen such alterations attest to Addison's labors of revision. Twelve alterations are slight changes in wording such as the shift from "indites" to "recites" (line 5), or from "A Captive Host" to "Whole Captive Hosts" (line 355). More positive revisions are confined to four passages, each a single couplet. Although these are strictly rhetorical in interest, they may be regarded as pointing out those passages in which Addison could have sensed the dangers of the kind of turgidity that led Pope to score on The Campaign in his Peri Bathous.[8] Since the revised couplets appear in widely separated passages on pages 4, 8, 13, and 16, it is apparent that Addison submitted the whole poem to critical scrutiny. One example, lines 153-154 on page 8, will suffice to show the general character of his polishing.

Whole Nations trampl'd into Dirt, and bruis'd
In one promiscuous Carnage lye confus'd. (First edition)


Page 261
Nations with Nations mix'd confus'dly lie,
And lost in one promiscuous Carnage lye. (Third edition)

With the recognition that Addison's work on The Campaign was complete with the third edition, subsequent reprints retain but slight importance, although they do show continued interest in the most successful of the several score of Blenheim poems or, indeed, of the larger group of Marlborough panegyrics. The 1708 edition with the Latin translation, Hill's piracy of 1710, T. Warner's edition of 1713, and the reprint in Part VI of the reissue of the Dryden-Tonson Miscellanies in 1716, all listed by Guthkelch, have no textual importance. Unnoticed by Guthkelch are two Tonson editions, of 1713 and 1725, which are labeled as the fifth and sixth editions respectively. The 1713 edition is embellished by an engraving which depicts an Angel bearing a sword and riding the storm clouds above Marlborough's head, while he, mounted on a rearing horse, towers above squadrons of cavalry on the field of combat below. The 1725 edition is an unpretentious octavo, interesting only in that it is the final separate printing to be identified with the name of Tonson, although of course the elder Jacob had retired in 1720. Thus a total of six editions, four of them separate printings, are to be associated with the press of the eminent Kit-Cat printer.

The final question remains: which of the three 1705 Tonson texts of The Campaign is to be preferred? Although conventional editorial procedure would select the revised third to reprint, the McKerrow-Greg bibliographical school—conscious of the derivation of some of the "accidentals" of the third from the unauthoritative second edition—would choose the authoritative first edition as copy-text and in this would incorporate the authoritative substantive revisions of the third and such of its unique "accidentals" variants as might be due to Addison's own alterations.[9] To date no edition is available which, according to this standard, is completely satisfactory.[10]



* A census of copies of The Campaign in some fifty English and American libraries discloses only fourteen copies of the first edition. Three others in the possession of the writer, and three in private or dealers' hands, raises the total to twenty, of which nineteen have been examined for variant features. The first edition is held by the following libraries: MH(2), CSmH, CLUC, CtY (badly trimmed, lacking title), MB, NjP, NN, IU, ICU, NNC, TxU, British Museum (Ashley: another copy lost in blitz), and Bodleian. A selection of prominent libraries not holding the first edition includes DFo, MiU, MWiW-C, ICN, NNP, Pforzheimer, Grolier, Congress, Cambridge University.


The Miscellaneous Works of Joseph Addison, ed. A. C. Guthkelch, vol. I (1914), pp. 154-70.


R. D. Horn, "Addison's Campaign and Macaulay," Publications of the Modern Language Association of America, LXIII (1948), 892-93.


Horn, op. cit., p. 893.


Some difficulty, which cannot be fully resolved, arises in that sheet C is set in a slightly wider measure, though apparently by the same compositor, than sheet B and, by the evidence of the half-title, sheet A. Just possibly the order of composition was B, A, and C, and the compositor adjusted his measure with C in order to utilize skeletons made up for the latter part.


The first-edition sheet D may be recognized by the lack of a comma after "dispense" in line 1 of sig. D1 recto, whereas a comma appears in the second edition. On sig. D2 recto of the first edition the second and third lines end with thin commas, but in the second edition these are of regular font thickness.


The writer is indebted to Dr. Bowers for suggestions concerning the bibliographical evidence and its possible interpretation in these editions.


For a discussion of this precise point and case-histories from the text of Dryden, see F. Bowers, "Recent Theories of Copy-Text, with an Illustration from Dryden," Modern Philology, for August, 1950.


Pope very easily finds in panegyric verse illustrations for Macrology and Pleonasm, "the superfluity of words and vacuity of sense" conjoined. Without naming Addison he remarks, "I am pleased to see one of our greatest adversaries employ this figure." He then offers six isolated lines without comment, and in the following sequence, 199, 202, 193, 268, 168, and 190. Actually, Addison got off very easily. Since Pope's extracts are taken almost without exception from Whig apologists, he may have included Addison as much for his political associations as for being guilty of poetic swellings and tautology. See Works of Pope, ed. Warburton, IV (1788), 173-74.


For this editorial procedure, see W. W. Greg, "The Rationale of Copy-Text" earlier in the present volume. Presumably either the "Brittish" or "British" form would be made consistent, however, according to which seems to represent Addison's own usage.


The posthumous Tickell edition of 1721 has been made the basis of all modern texts, including that of Guthkelch, instead of the early editions. Tickell, in fact, did restore a number of the first-edition punctuation variants to his third-edition copy-text (this is surely significant coming from Addison's close friend); but, as was inevitable, the compositor of his edition normalized some spellings and treated the capitalization freely so that in certain respects his text is yet one further step removed from basic authority in detail.