:: :: University of Virginia Library

Through various discoveries and acquisitions in the years since Smith's census the record of extant Second Folios in perfect or impaired condition[45] may now be extended to include some 196 copies, or approximately one-fifth of the number estimated in the original edition. The existing copies constitute a rather large percentage, large enough, I believe, to provide a reliable index of the proportions among the states at the time of publication. I therefore offer, in Table II, several calculations, one projecting the ratio fixed by the extant copies and, as a check against this, another indicating a hypothetical distribution based on the investment of those participating in the edition.

Table II

Allocation on Evidence of Known Copies
Number of perfect exemplars: 163
Percent of 1000 copies: 16.3
Allocation on Basis of Copyright
Number of plays: 36
Copies per share 36/1000 or 27.8

		&c.mmat; 1000	Copies	&c.mmat; 1000
Variant imprint	Copies	Copies	owned	Copies
c Smethwick	16	102.0	4	111.2
d Aspley	7	43.8	2	55.6
ef Hawkins	9	56.3	1	27.8
g Meighen	6	37.5	1	27.8
"Cotes & Allot"	[125]	[791.4]	[28]	[778.4]
Subtotals: a	31	203.8
b	73	456.3
II	14	87.5
III	7	43.8

The remarkable correlation between these two sets of figures, each derived from a different premise, undoubtedly brings us very close to what must have been the actual distribution. Only in Hawkins is there an appreciable discrepancy, and this, I believe, can be compromised by reference to the property held by the minor shareholders. Any evaluation, whether of plays or of real estate, involves a consideration not directly related to the size of the piece. Hawkins had only one play, true, but this was Othello, a possession certainly equivalent in value to both of the plays owned by Aspley (Much Ado and 1 Henry IV) and twice the value of the single play owned by Meighen (Merry Wives). Between these two figures, then, the one which measures only the size of the property should very probably be ignored in deference to the one which evidently signifies its importance.

With this much rationalized (at least to my own satisfaction) we may confidently reconcile the slight disparity in the estimates for all states by adjusting the figures to the practical limits determined by the quires of paper, i.e., to the nearest multiple of 24.

	Ia	b	c	d	ef	g	II	III	Total
Quires	8	19	4	2	2	1	4	2	42
Issue	192	456	96	48	48	24	96	48	1008
Total issue	864						96	48	1008

This tabulation serves to enforce earlier considerations and leads to others still unresolved. For one, it will be observed that the order of imposition in the original issue, as previously determined, corresponds both to the extent of the copyright and hence to the size of the allotment for each of the proprietors. First off the press were the 27 quires of title-sheets for Allot and Cotes, then 4 for Smethwick, 2 each for Aspley and Hawkins, and finally a single quire for Meighen. For another, it should be noted that the total for all issues is within one quire of what the stationer calls a "perfect bundle,"[46] the most convenient set-out for an edition of this size. Both in whole and in part the figures therefore conform to the general estimate of the extent of the edition and of its various states.

The matters unresolved and deliberately evaded until now relate to the occasion for the alteration in the Cotes-Allot imprint a-b and the reason

for the excessive delay in the production of the later issues II-III. Since neither of the imprints in the first issue can be regarded as a correction of the other, we may surmise that the two were used so that the warehouseman could readily distinguish the lots to be sent forward to Allot from those to be retained by Cotes. In the preparation of the edition both of these partners, like Jaggard and Blount before them, were acting in behalf of certain unnamed associates as well as for themselves. The 28 "copies" assigned to both by imprint or, rather, the stock represented by these copies, was therefore not entirely theirs by right but by purchase from owners who had relinquished any interest in the sale of their property. Table III identifies the owners of these copies, the proportionate share of their investment, and, for comparative purposes, certain other figures from our earlier estimate.

Table III

			Entitlement	Represented by Cotes-Allot
Owner[47]	Interest	Plays
			[multiples of 24]	Titles in state
Robert Allot (½)}	As indicated,	{8	192	Ia (192 copies)
Thomas Cotes (¼)}	part ownership	{4}	96}
Richard Cotes (¼)}	in 16 plays.	{4}
Richard Cotes	exclusive title	4}	192}	Ib (456 copies)
Thomas Hayes	" "	1	24}
Nathaniel Butter	" "	1	24}
[Surplus: appropriated by Cotes brothers?]		120}
Unassigned, presumably derelict	6	144	II,III (144 copies)
			---	---
		Total:	792	792

Since Allot was entitled only to 192 copies, the equivalent of those estimated in state a, it would seem that this imprint, describing the place of sale as "at his ſhop", is the one that identifies his consignment. Apparently, then, the lots with the abbreviated imprint b, those not sold 'at Allot's shop', were reserved for the Cotes brothers and their unnamed associates. Included in these, we note, are the 336 copies belonging to them by right or purchase and, as our speculations lead us to suppose, 120 others over

and above their pro-rata share. Possibly, if there was any such surplus, some or all of it may have been baled up at the Cotes warehouse and dispatched to booksellers outside London for sale in the provinces.[48]

Besides these, however, there was still another lot which they could neither publicly claim nor privately appropriate for themselves—the 144 copies subject to seizure by the unknown owners of the six derelict plays. This group was discreetly laid aside, without titles, until such time as the claimants might identify themselves and secure their proper share with the imprint they might desire. For nine years or more the brothers Cotes awaited the heirs of the registered owners. Finally, after the inventory of 1641, Richard Cotes assumed the rights which others had allowed to lapse, and provided the remainders with new imprints copied from a sheet of the original issue.[49] These then appeared at the bookstalls with the titles identified as II and III.

Richard's motive in disguising these two issues was, we may believe, very prudent, if not entirely commendable. Quite apart from his customary habit of operating under his brother's name, there was now another and more compelling reason, that of avoiding a confiscation of all remainders under the Ordinance of 1641. This specifically prohibited the printing, and hence the sale, of any book without the express consent of the owners.[50] But who were the owners of these six plays? Whoever they were, Cotes must have reasoned, their failure to contest the issue of 1632 amounted to an abandonment of the property to which they were then entitled. What was apparent to Cotes, however, as he doubtless realised, might not be apparent in the eyes of the law. Hence, rather than invite litigation, he passed these remnants off as the original issue and stood ready to defend them as part of an edition published long before the Ordinance was in effect. Even in his most sanguine moments, though, he could hardly have anticipated the ruling of Shakespeare's bibliographers that the special sheets were to be regarded, not only as coeval with the original issue, but as a series of states preceding it.