 | |  |
Notes
"The Variant Issues of Shakespeare's Second Folio and Milton's First Published English Poem: A Bibliographical Problem," Lehigh University Publications, II, No. 3 (1928). The death of Professor Smith on January 15 of this year brings to an end in time, but certainly not in memory, an association extending from my early days as an undergraduate. As it was he who first introduced me to the ways of scholarship and thereafter encouraged my interest in bibliography, I am confident that the present expression of this interest would have received his hearty approval.
With this disavowal I now assume responsibility for all errors and omissions in the presentation of my case. In the gathering of the necessary evidence, though, I gratefully acknowledge the interest of the Modern Language Association Committee on Research Activities for a grant in aid of my investigation, the helpful advice of Dr. Allan H. Stevenson on the variant paper in the Folio—a matter of crucial importance to my argument—and the generous assistance of curators throughout the country in reporting the peculiarities of the copies in their custody. To Dr. Giles E. Dawson and Dr. James G. McManaway of the Folger Library, Mr. H. Richard Archer of the Clark Library, and Mr. Herman R. Mead of the Huntington Library I am under especial obligation for the time and energy they have devoted in my behalf.
This is the total of sorts in the title page (247) and the Effigies page (993), each twice distributed and twice re-composed.
As this sheet would require laborious composition (in the selection, spacing, and centering of type in different fonts) and a considerable amount of presswork (three operations, one for the inner forme [Effigies], one for the outer [title], and one again for the outer [portrait]), the total cost would be far in excess of that for any other.
Not now, but pertinent to a later stage of our discussion is another question: Why print titles for stock to which, in fact, they were not entitled?
As this contention has not been justified in the present description of the Fourth Folio, I ask the reader's indulgence until such time as I may offer my own account.
Since the Archer headpiece and similar blocks from the same matrix were commonly used by Cotes and others throughout this period, I disregard its appearance here. It has been noted in such books as STC 4510, 14813, 19302, 19654, and 22273.
In A6r, adjoining Effigies leaf A5r, both of these ornaments were used again, a clear indication that they were in the hands of the compositor as he prepared first one and then the other forme for the press. Elsewhere the "S" occurs at D2r and d5v, the "W" at alr and 2p2v, and other letters of the same kind throughout the book.
So in my control copy DFo35. Heawood 1420 is a small fleur-de-lis, always in paper with chainlines approximately 23 mm. apart, and evidently existing in at least three different states. According to Dr. Stevenson's method (see fn. 15), I describe these as A 53x25mm. [7(13:12)10]—in DFo copy 2i3; B 54x25mm. [10(12:13)8]— in 2m1, 204-5-6, 2r3, 2y1; C 57x27mm. [8(15:12) 10]—in 2y4, 3a6, 3b1, 3b3, 3d1-2. Heawood 1731 is a large shield, usually indistinct, and measuring vertically either 137 or 141x54 mm. It appears in DFo copy at 3a5 and 3c2. So far as I have observed, H1420 is used as the title-effigies sheet only for some copies of the Smethwick-Aspley imprints, H1731 for all others. See further, fns. 40, 41.
Reference "ab" indicates two variants within the same word. Not cited are the unique variants "Coppies" in Allot 1, "according" in Allot 2, and the omitted phrase "at his ſhop" in Allot 4.
The sheet in InI copy of this state is not H594, but apparently of another Guesdon mould in the style of H576 without initials or date. The mark is on paper with chain-lines 21 mm. apart and measures 90x38 mm., dimensions which vary widely from those for H594 (fn. 19), or for still another variant of H576 recently described by Allan H. Stevenson (Studies in Bibliography, IV [1951], 81). For an account of this copy and a sketch of the mark I am indebted to Miss Frances Stalker, Head of the Reference Department, Indianapolis Public Library.
See Giles E. Dawson's account of DFo38 in TLS, Feb. 1, 1947, p. 65. The copy is now in storage.
By Dr. Stevenson at the University of Chicago library, by myself at the Harvard and Folger libraries. Heawood had previously specified Britain as containing the paper.
The mark is on leaf 3K5 of the Chicago copy, not observed in Folger exemplar. It is also noteworthy that this volume (STC 19302) contains all but one of the ornaments present in the several settings of A5r of the Second Folio: the 1 "S" on four pages [3R5v, 4D1r, 6Y1v, 7A4r], 1 "W" on four [4F2v, 6H6v, 6M1r, 6S1r], 3 "S" on one [7A1r], and the peculiar 2 "S" factotum on no less than thirteen [B2v, B4v, C3v, D3r, G4r, H6r, 16r, 3Y2r, 4M2r, 4R2v, 5G2r, 5H6v, 6E6r].
Mark H594 is a small Guesdon shield, 70x63 mm. The states appearing in the Folger copies are these: A 18[3:22:20:18]3 OUT and B 16[4:22:20:17]5 IN. A is in Second Folio copy 36 [issue II] A5; copy 15 [issue III] A5; Camden [Latham imprint] a1, a2; Paris C1, D2, F4, G2, G3, H5, I1, and on. B is in Camden a3; Paris G6, H6, I2, I4, and on. Quite unnoticed by me, but quite apparent to Dr. Stevenson's gimlet eye is occasional evidence indicating the transfer and resewing of the mark in the A state.
Aldis and Plomer's Dictionaries record the dates as Hawkins c1636, Aspley and Smethwick 1640, and Meighen c1641. The return of any copies would, of course, be in satisfaction of liens against the estates of these associates. Copies so recovered might then be reissued with A2.5 intact or (see fn. 21) with the inappropriately imprinted A2 removed.
It is not inconceivable, though, that Legatt and Crooke may have acquired stock in the other ways described and remaindered this in the condition in which it was found. How else may we account for the extraordinary number of copies in defective condition? Altogether these comprise about sixteen per cent of all copies now extant, and practically every one lacks only the interior leaves A2 or A2.5. Surely the restorer is not to be held responsible for such an extensive and such a specific loss as this. More likely is the supposition that some copies, representing lots returned by Allot's associates (condition 3), were issued with the inapplicable titles deleted, and some others, representing lots discovered in the warehouse (1 and 2) were distributed in their originally imperfect condition, with both leaves absent. All we need do now is to differentiate the copies in these several categories from those whose deficiencies are of later date!
4694, 19248, 19302, 19846, 21068, 22339 [also in Greg's Bibliography, item 284f], 22502, 23541-42. One other (12017) appears without name in imprint.
Richard shared one-half interest with his brother in 16 plays and was the sole owner of 4 others: Titus Andronicus, Henry 5, and "Yorke and Lancaster" or 2-3 Henry 6. The Register entry for these (Nov. 8, 1630) also includes Pericles, a play not incorporated in the 2d Folio.
As Dr. Dawson has remarked, this in itself should be interpreted as "Printed by Thomas Cotes for himself and Robert Allot." Studies in Honor of A. H. R. Fair-child (U. of Missouri Studies, XXI, No. 1 [1946]), p. 19.
Since the date now assigned is not beyond dispute, even if supported by a motive, I urge those who remain unconvinced to search out copies of certain provenance or others with dated inscriptions. Of some interest in this connection would be a positive identification as to the issue of two copies for which the time of acquisition is known, i.e., one bought by Sir Thomas Barrington about 1637 and the other purchased for the Earl of Huntingdon in October 1638. [Francis R. Johnson, "Notes on English Retail Book-prices, 1550-1640," The Library, 5th ser., V (1950-51), 91-92.]
Hawkins imprint e, unrepresented in Smith's account, has since been described by Dawson in TLS, February 1, 1947, p. 65. Professor Smith did remark the identity in type between the Hawkins f and Smethwick imprints (p. 26), but as he was here, as elsewhere, bound by the traditional arrangement, failed to group the two together.
In view of McKerrow's warning against the reliability of any discrepancy amounting to less than 4 per cent, I should defend the validity of this precise distinction by noting, first, that the A2.5 sheet is fine quality crown paper, of uniform weight and consistency, second, that the differences appear only among a few copies in two of the seven states in this issue, third, that when they do appear they concern only a portion of the letterpress on the page, and fourth, that the deviation is generally corroborated by other evidence. For these several reasons I have no hesitation in citing such minutiae as indications of some disruption in the presswork.
Measured from the base of The ſecond Impreſsion (excluding descenders) to the top of the word LONDON. Only one copy (NN-Hawkins state) measures less than the common interval of 204 mm., but as the discrepancy is no more than 2 mm., and unconfirmed by any other difference, it has been disregarded.
It would seem that the engraving mangle, though carefully adjusted at first so as to center the impression between the two areas of type (see initial variant copies NNP and CLU-C [the latter reproduced in Smith, p. 23]), soon developed a "wobble" which scattered the impression at various angles in all succeeding variants and states.
The measurements apply to all copies seen and reported in this state except for CLU-C, described as 167-205, and CSmH, described as 166-203. These differences are so minute, however, that I have classified the copies as a1 and a2 respectively.
Especially toward the end of the run on state b. See the reproduction of the Lehigh University copy in Smith, p. 21.
291 (439AII), 3075, 17638 (470AI), 17642 (424A), 22801. In this and the preceding references it will be understood that the imprints are not, in all cases, identical but only equivalent to those cited in the text.
The paper previously identified as H1420 with chainlines 23 mm. apart (fn. 12) appears in all copies of this state, either as a full sheet (CLU-C, with w/m state C in Effigies leaf) or as the title-leaf (NN, w/m state A; other copies unwatermarked). In these others the disjunct leaf A5 has lines spaced either at 25 mm. (NN), the normal interval for the H1731 stock used elsewhere in the impression, or at 20 mm. (CSmH, NBuG), an interval for stock as yet unidentified.
Variant 2 has w/m as indicated in all copies known to me except for the two at CLU-C. In one of these the sheet is of the usual paper (H1731), but with w/m turned as in variant 1. In the other the sheet is of paper (H1420) found elsewhere only in copies with the Aspley imprint. The w/m for this, in state C, is in the title leaf. See preceding note.
In a few copies of state b (e.g. DFo37) the position is normal, 66 mm. to the right of the "margin"; but in most the position corresponds to that in c1. Perhaps this displacement is to be accounted for, in part at least, by varying degrees of pressure applied against the side of the forme in lock-up.
See fns. 12, 40, 41. A reversal of this situation occurs in the last four quires of the book, where a few odd lots of H1731 intrude upon a run of H1420.
Through design or coincidence the order of imposition arranged by the overseer corresponds, with one exception, to the order of names in the colophon. In this Allot's name is entered at the end rather than at the beginning of the sequence.
By "perfect" I mean all copies with a title-page, whether or not this is integral to the book in which it is found.
Defined as containing two reams or 43 quires, with 24 sheets to each quire. Caleb Stower, The Printer's Grammar (1808), p. 402. I here refer, of course, to the bundle provided for each sheet of the edition except the underprinted A2.5.
See Stationer's Record, as corrected in Greg's Bibliography, for November 16, 1630 (to Allot), June 19, 1627 (to Cotes Brothers), November 8, 1630 (to Richard Cotes), October 28, 1600 (to Hays), November 26, 1607 (to Butter). The derelict plays were Richard II, Richard III, and I Henry IV, last assigned to Law on June 25, 1603; Midsummer Night's Dream assigned to Fisher Ovtober 8, 1600; Troilus and Cressida entered to Bonian and Walley January 28, 1608/9; and King John, a play generally confused with Troublesome Reign.
In the several studies of the significance of variant imprints it has not been sufficiently emphasized that a considerable portion of the copies of any one edition may have been sold by persons unidentified in the imprint. One may recall several examples of this practice, notably the sale of a 2nd Folio by Richard Whitaker to Sir Thomas Barrington in 1637 (Johnson, op. cit., p. 87, 91), and Robert Allot's consignment to the Edinburgh bookseller Samuel Hart, on August 11, 1635, of some 13 books, only 3 of which carry his name as publisher. See Johnson's list, items 60, 115, 213, 252, 257, 258, 368, 390, 428, 454, and for the Allot books, 64, 234, 517.
The copy was, presumably, a proof-sheet of the earliest state a and not, under the present hypothesis, of the state b which had previously designated the Cotes allotment of copies. The earlier distinction would of course have been quite irrelevant to an issue in 1641.
Frank MacKinnon, "Notes on the History of English Copyright," Oxford Companion to English Literature, 2d ed. (New York, 1944), p. 879.
See Smith's account (pp. 40-45) of Sir Edwin Durning-Lawrence's unorthodox publicity methods. Beginning with Sir Edwin's peculiar thesis at the turn of the century, the "Effigies" controversy is the story of error steadily compounded into the distorted form now accepted by Milton scholars. Among others, see Harris W. Fletcher (ed.), John Milton's Complete Poetical Works (Urbana, 1943), I, 365-366.
Smith, op. cit., p. 34. Elements of text and type common to I and II: 6, 13c, 14b, 22b, 25a; common to I and III: 11 13a, 14a, 17a, 17b, 18, 22a, 22c, 25b, 28. Type not available upon the composition of I but present in II-III: 3, 4, 13b. Ligatured type peculiar to I: 9.
Under this arrangement starre-ypointing (17b), the crux of the Effigies controversy, occurs as the correct reading in the original issue I and in one of the two reprints of I. This simple deduction relieves us from the necessity of maintaining the usual argument that it was originally starre-ypointed, "corrected" in a new setting at Milton's insistence and then, for some inexplicable reason, "corrected" yet again in still another setting. Are we expected to believe that, for this page alone, it requires the handling of 3972 sorts to alter a suffix of two letters? See fn. 4.
The existence of this variant (then considered as an early state of the 3rd issue) was first noticed in a description of the Viscount Mersey copy (Sotheby catalogue, June 29—July 1, 1938, item 699) and subsequently, with a facsimile of the state, in Book Hand-book, I, nos. 7-8 (1950). I am indebted to Mr. Reginald Horrox, the editor of the Handbook, for the reference to Sotheby and for his strenuous but unavailing efforts to trace the Mersey copy.
For any other order the only explanation is one which depends upon the "lapse and recovery" hypothesis. The supposition for this is that the unattended compositor conscientiously endeavors to improve the readings from one reprint to another, and if he slips at any time supplies a reading at least as good as the original as he strives on nearer and nearer to perfection. The theory is very appealing, often proposed, and as often contradicted by strictly bibliographical evidence.
Pierpont Morgan copy 5126. Fortunately for the bibliographer, this copy is sophisticated, since neither A2 nor A5 has a watermark.
So in the reconstructed Mersey copy, as described by Sotheby, in Folger 14, another made-up copy, and in Folger 34, apparently genuine. Except for these three and the one mentioned in the preceding note all copies of this issue known to me carry the Effigies page in the later state.
Allan H. Stevenson, "New Uses of Watermarks as Bibliographical Evidence," Papers Biblio Soc. U. of Virginia, I (1948), 160 and fn. 33.
The mid-point in an issue of 864 would be 432, or 192 copies of a and the first 240 of some 456 sheets of b.
| | |