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
(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,
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
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
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)
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]
