University of Virginia Library

I. The Order of Issues

The issues of this Folio are distinguished by three settings of the letterpress for A2.5 of the initial quire, a sheet containing on the recto (outer forme) of one leaf the title to the work, and on the recto (inner forme) of the other several commemorative verses on the author. Two of the three settings for the title also exist in a number of states, usually identified by alterations in the impressions for Robert Allot, one of the principal shareholders, or by the special imprints provided for his collaborators. Between the variants for both leaves there is an obvious correlation best described, in Smith's terminology, as: Allot 1 associated with Effigies A; Allot 2-3 with Effigies B; and Allot 4-5, Aspley, Hawkins, Meighen, and Smethwick, all with Effigies C.

To substantiate this sequence, insofar as it applies to the Allot variants, Professor Smith believed that we may "assume, with a high degree of probability, that the order of the title-pages follows the order of improvement, since it is readily demonstrable that the compositor or compositors tried to correct in every succeeding title-page mistakes made in the preceding one."[3] The probability, it seems to me, is at times very remote. Where the corrections occur within the setting, as in Allot 2-3 and Allot 4-5, the intent and direction of improvement is apparent. But where the corrections require a completely new setting, as in the transition from Allot 1 to 2 and from 3 to 4, the necessity of such extraordinary measures for such trifling results remains obscure—at least under the present assumption.

Even more remarkable is the fact that whenever the compositor of the title discards his forme the compositor of the Effigies page also discards his at precisely the same time. This means that the two men, working together and in the same incomprehensible fashion, twice distribute the entire letterpress for the sheet, twice prepare others, and in the process aimlessly fritter away the hours (days, I should say) shuffling and reshuffling countless reglets, wedges, quoins, quads and spaces, as well as some 4960 sorts[4]—all this, we note, to arrange a few "improvements"

which any dolt could have managed in five to ten minutes with several pieces of type. In view of this circumstance, one unparalleled in the annals of bibliography, the inclination is to cast about for another hypothesis wherein these seeming absurdities are reasonably explained.

For the moment, though, let us consider what else may be said for our diligent compositors and their heroic struggle to improve the text. In the sentence following the one cited, Smith assured us that "this assumption acquires a certainty with the demonstration of typographical links between successive title-pages."[5] Between the first two settings there is assuredly, not only a typographical connection in the employment of the same fonts of type, but also, as Smith elsewhere observes, a further correlation in the use of the same variety of paper. Obviously, then, these two were prepared within a relatively short period. Between the second and the third, on the other hand, no similarity exists. In Smith's words, the type is "not identical," "in a different font," and the paper for the later setting is drawn "from another stock."[6] Thus by his own admission the "links" disappear, the demonstration fails, and the expected certainty resolves into an increasing distrust of the entire argument. If the premise is unsustained all that is based upon it is in imminent danger of collapse.

At this impasse let us now turn to another theory immediately verified by evidence within the book and thereafter supported by every indication of relevance to this inquiry. Contrary to the received opinion, this would suppose that the Title-Effigies sheet was, for various reasons, deliberately underprinted and then, as the occasion required, twice reset at some later time to dispose of remainders. The sheet identifying each of the subsequent issues might therefore, in this view, be properly regarded as a "reprint," and like all reprints would presumably convey readings inferior to those in its copytext. Possibly, then, the order is the reverse of that alleged, and the sequence one of degradation rather than improvement.

Some credence is given this presumption by the questions the publishers themselves might have raised. Why run a complete issue of the most expensive sheet[7] in a very costly book? Since this was not an original edition, why imprint their names to something which might still be on the shelves some twenty years after they were gone and forgotten? Why not print just enough for their immediate needs and let events determine

whether they, or their successors, should print again?[8] Should these or other considerations have convinced them—and now convince us—of the advisability of limiting the original issue, the publishers of the Second Folio may be credited with greater foresight than those of the Third and Fourth; for while they eventually chose not to alter the original make-up in successive printings, their precaution obviated any necessity for cancellation, a necessity later enforced upon their less perceptive successors.[9]

For the thesis, as now proposed, several pieces of evidence may be advanced, all tending to the same conclusion. In his examination of the correlations among the three settings Professor Smith neglected to observe that the two which are actually connected have no relation to the rest of the book, whereas the third, though independent of the others, is very closely affiliated both in the ornamental letters and in the paper used for this setting. The ornaments in all issues, consisting of the letters "S" and "W" on the Effigies page,[10] are of three kinds, each cut in a manner that suggests their origin in three separate foundries.

           

Group	Effigies	Ornamental block
1	C	"S" against a filigreed background
1	C & B	"W" against a similar background
2	A	Type "S" within a wreathed factotum
3	B	"S" against a broad leaf background
3	A	"W" against a similar background

Among these only group 1 is represented in the Folio.[11]

As with the ornaments, so with the paper: that used for the settings commonly described as the first and second (Heawood 594) does not appear elsewhere in this book or in any other book of this date, but that used for the setting usually considered to be the third (H 1420 or 1731) repeatedly occurs in the last nineteen quires of the Folio.[12] Now since the

preliminary sheet would normally be printed in conjunction with other work toward the end of the book, the identity in paper confirms the identity in ornaments and establishes a strong presumption for an order in which the "third" setting is distinguished as the first. Thus, in the absence of the slightest evidence to the contrary, the Allot 4-5—Effigies C sheet must be regarded as the original issue, carefully prepared from manuscript, and the others as mere reprints, hastily composed, badly centered and spaced, and obviously degraded in text.

The exact order of the reprints may now be determined by the textual relationship among the title-pages.

Table I

                     

Issue	I	II	III
[Smith]	[Allot 4-5]	[Allot 1]	[Allot 2-3]
Line
1a	Mr.	Mr.	Mr.
1b	W	VV	VV
4	HISTORIES,	HISTORIES,	HISTORIES
7ab	fmpreſsion [double s separate]	fmpreſsion [double s separate]	Impreſsion [double s ligatured]
9	Tho.	Tho.	Tho
10a	Blacke	blacke	blacke
10b	Pauls	Pauls	Pauls
10cd	Church-yard.	Church-yard.	Church-yard,

From Table I[13] it will be observed that, on this score alone, Allot 1 cannot be designated as the first in a sequence of issues gradually "improving" in the direction of Allot 5, for it is intermediate between 5 and 2, having seven variants in common with the one and three in common with the other. Hence for this reason, others previously adduced, and others yet to be divulged, I suggest that we reject the outmoded "Allot 1—5" classification and adopt one corresponding to the evident order of issues. Including only what I believe to be the first of the states in the initial setting (all of which will be dealt with in the next section) the three issues, with their variants, are identified as follows:            

Order	Ia	II	IIIa	IIIb
[Smith]	[Allot 5—Effigies C]	[Allot 1—Effigies A]	[Allot 2—Effigies B]	[Allot 3—Effigies B]
Description	1st issue,	2d issue	3d issue,	3d issue
	1st state		1st state	2d state
Paper	H1731[14]	H594	H594	H594[15]
Ornaments on Effigies page	1,1	2,3	1,3	1,3

The inspection of a photostat from copy tentatively identified as a variant of the state now described as IIIb[16] leads me to believe that this is the artful work of a restorer.

With the three issues properly identified, and properly arranged in sequence, we should now endeavor to fix the approximate time and circumstance of publication. For the later settings, as for certain Jaggard-Pavier quartos, there is some indication that the imprint is misleading in all of its particulars. Unquestionably, as the paper attests, issue I was printed and sold in the manner announced on the title page. But II and III, though distributed with a similar announcement, were produced on such unusual paper that an intensive search through the crown folios in several libraries[17] has disclosed its presence not before 1637 and then only in three books: certain leaves of the preliminary quire of Camden's Britain (1637), printed by Felix Kyngston and others; throughout in Paris's Historia maior (1640), by Richard Hodgkinson; and occasionally as a single sheet in Parkinson's Theatrum Botanicum (1640),[18] ostensibly by Thomas Cotes, the printer

of the Second Folio. Moreover, as the investigation has also revealed, the distinctive mark for this paper seems to exist only in the two states required for a single pair of moulds;[19] and as neither of these states shows any sign of deterioration the inference follows that the period of manufacture approximates the dates of the books in which the paper was found. It is quite probable, therefore, that the later issues of the Shakespeare Folio were sold, not by Robert Allot in 1632, but by his successors sometime between 1636 and 1641.

Within that period occur four significant events, any one of which might have provided a suitable occasion for reissue: (1) an inventory of Allot's effects subsequent to his death in 1635; (2) a transfer of the stock by his widow Mary to Legatt and Crooke on the first of July, 1637; (3) the gradual accumulation of unsold copies returned to the new proprietors upon the demise of Allot's original collaborators, all of whom had died between 1636 and 1641;[20] and (4) still another inventory, in 1641, upon the death of Thomas Cotes, the printer of the original issue and part owner of the stock. Of these the most plausible circumstance is the last. Under any other condition we would expect to find issues with Legatt's imprint and Crooke's name as publisher. But since these do not appear, and since, in any event, neither Legatt nor Crooke was in possession of the paper, engraving, or ornaments used for these issues,[21] their origin may be traced

to certain untitled lots originally reserved for Cotes and now brought forth upon their discovery in 1641. At this time, as stipulated by the will, Thomas's younger brother Richard assumed possession of the stock, the printing shop, and all implements therein.[22]

That Richard should have failed to enter his name on the titles is not surprising, for of all the established printers of the day his record is distinguished by a penchant for anonymity. So far as I can discover, within the STC period, his name appears alone as printer on only two books, both undated.[23] Only once is he associated with a printer other than Thomas, and on the occasions when he is entered with his brother he usually withdraws his name from subsequent editions.[24] Books in which he had a considerable interest, such as the nine owned jointly with his brother[25] or the nine owned exclusively by himself,[26] appear invariably with the name of Thomas alone, never his own. Even for the Second Folio, an enterprise in which his investment was twice that of his brother's,[27] comparable to Allot's, and equivalent to the total advanced by the minor shareholders, the colophon and imprints register the names of all but the self-effacing Richard Cotes. Apparently, if this practice has any significance, the greater his responsibility and—we may presume—the greater his share of the presswork, the less his inclination to acknowledge it. Much of what is nominally under the imprint of Thomas may, then, be justly attributed to his silent partner.

Of all the books to which I have alluded, only one bears any particular relationship to the later issues of the Folio, and in every respect the correlation is complete, exact, and irrefutable. This, we should now recall, is the Theatrum Botanicum (19302), a volume which contains in some copies the rare and elusive watermark also found in these issues. Here then is the crucial exhibit: a book published within a year of the inventory of Thomas's effects, with paper and ornaments like those in the sheet applied

to the remainders presumably discovered in that appraisal, and with an imprint assigning the presswork to one man when it was actually the property and almost certainly the work of another. Faced with this series of coincidences, I find it impossible to avoid the conclusion that the title-pages for these issues, now reading "Printed by Tho. Cotes, for Robert Allot . . . 1632",[28] should be understood as "Printed by and for Richard Cotes . . . 1641 or later."

Thus, at last, the esteemed "first" and "second" issues—the erstwhile "Allots 1—3," so enshrined by the earlier bibliographers and so avidly pursued by collectors everywhere—are now revealed to be, in all the light that can be shed upon them, nothing more than sweepings from the warehouse floor. Whether these scraps are entitled to remain within the pale of the Short-Title Catalogue is not for me to decide. I am content to present here the circumstantial evidence and, later, a proper motive for Richard's action in reissuing the book in the manner described.[29]