Eighteenth-Century Editions of Steele's
Conscious Lovers
by
Shirley Strum Kenny
When Sir Richard Steele's long-promised play The Conscious
Lovers opened at the Drury Lane Theatre on 7 November 1722, it
was assured a long run by advance publicity and a critical controversy.
Rumors that Steele was writing a remarkable play had circulated for years.
Now audacious puffs informed newspaper readers that it was "the very best
that ever came upon the English Stage."[1] Advertisements announced new
costumes
and sets for the production. The critic John Dennis, irked at the publicity,
attacked the play in a pamphlet published five days before the opening.
Even after such unusual press agentry, the comedy's success probably
exceeded expectations. An unusually long first run of eighteen nights
brought the Drury Lane company £2,536/3/6 — more, according
to
Steele, than any play previously performed.
[2] There were eight more
performances
during the season. Pamphleteers and newspaper wits spent months ridiculing
it, defending it, and occasionally attempting responsible criticism.
The market for copies of The Conscious Lovers could
only be great. On 20 October, eighteen days before the opening, Steele
assigned publication rights to Jacob Tonson Jr. for £40 and "divers
other good Causes and Considerations." Half of the rights were reassigned
by Tonson to Bernard Lintot on 26 October, and on 1 December the play
was issued with the date 1723 on the title-page.[3] "Many thousand" copies were
printed,
and "a good part" of these were immediately sold, according to
Tonson.[4]
Actually there are three editions with the Tonson imprint dated 1723
although they were not labelled as different editions and they have never
been correctly distinguished and identified.[5] The physical evidence of the three,
summarized below, shows a very large and complex first edition, the "many
thousand" Tonson speaks of; a smaller second edition which quickly
followed the first; and a third to meet the continuing demand for
copies.
The title-page of one edition, designated I in the present discussion,
reads:
THE | Conscious Lovers. | A | COMEDY. | As it is Acted at the
| Theatre Royal in Drury-Lane, | By His MAJESTY's
Servants. | Written by | Sir RICHARD STEELE. |
Illud Genus Narrationis, quod in Personis positum est, |
debet habere Sermonis Festivitatem, Animorum
Dissi-|militudinem, Gravitatem, Lenitatem, Spem,
Metum, | Suspicionem, Desiderium, Dissimulationem,
Miseri-|cordiam, Rerum Varietates, Fortunœ
Commutationem, | Insperatum Incommodum, Subitam
Letitiam,
Jucundum | Exitum Rerum. Cic. Rhetor. ad Herenn.
Lib.
I. | LONDON: | Printed for J. Tonson at
Shakespear's Head over-|against Katharine-Street in
the
Strand. 1723.
The title-pages of the other two editions, here designated II and III, are
identical except for one line-division between the fourth and fifth lines of
the motto (I:
Miseri-|
cordiam; II, III:
Misericor-|
diam). All three are
octavos with the collational formula A-F
8
G
4. Although there are
differences in line-divisions, there is only one variation in pages: the last
line of A5
v in I is the first line of A6 in II and III.
A quick glance at substantive variants in the three editions will verify
that II must be the intermediate text:
Page and line |
I |
II |
III |
A6v.17 |
told me |
told me |
told |
5.14 |
I'm |
I am |
I am |
6.17 |
came |
came |
come |
7.34 |
there is |
there's |
there's |
8.1 |
Ay, Sir |
Sir |
Sir |
10.37 |
a Part |
Part |
Part |
14.17 |
greater |
greater |
great |
19.17 |
his |
his |
this |
22.1 |
But I |
I |
I |
29.4 |
thing right |
thing right |
right thing |
36.28 |
these |
those |
those |
42.25 |
God |
Good |
Good |
43.22 |
has he |
has he |
he has |
49.29 |
to beget |
beget |
beget |
52.1 |
plain,plainly (two states) |
plain |
plain |
67.38 |
I a |
a I |
I a |
71.34 |
Geoffry
|
Sir Geoffry
|
Sir Geoffry
|
75.28 |
I lost |
I lost |
lost |
Text II agrees in variants with each of the other texts almost an equal
number of times. In the only instance in which II contains a variant found
in neither I nor III, 67.38, the variant is an obvious misprint ("Oh! were a
I Man —") easily caught by a copy-editor or compositor and
corrected
in the later edition. A similar pattern of agreement in accidentals and
line-divisions of II sometimes with I and sometimes with III supplies further
evidence that II was either the second of the three texts or the copy-text for
both I and III.
Editions I and II were printed in very quick succession. The type
from the first of the two editions had not been distributed before the second
was begun; some of the same type, recognizable by broken letters, appears
in both settings. The reused type includes the outer forme of sheet C, the
inner forme of sheet E (except E3v, p. 54), and the
following pages:
A3v, B1v (p. 2), B8 (p. 15),
E4v (p. 56), E5 (p. 57), F5v
(p. 74), and G2v (p. 84). The fact that pages from seven
formes were
left undistributed at one time indicates that at least one of these two
editions, I and II, must have been very large and hastily printed. The
hurried edition would likely be the first, when the printers worked to satisfy
an eager public. This edition would probably also be the largest, as
Tonson's estimate of "many thousand" suggests. Of 36 copies examined in
connection with this paper, only three are text III, (at the Folger
Shakespeare Library, the Huntington Library, and
Harvard), and two are II (at Yale and the Bodleian). The other 31
are I. Assuming that survival gives an indication of the size of the printing,
edition I must have been issued in far greater numbers than either II or
III.
Also, edition I required an unusually complex printing job. The type
seems to have been repeatedly tied and stored, then reused. Running-titles
vary from copy to copy, suggesting that the type pages were several times
inserted in chases for press-runs. The only formes in which running-titles
remained unchanged in the fourteen copies I collated were A, G, and outer
E, with the exception of E3 (p. 53) on which three variant running-titles
appear in different copies. It seems probable that the runs of outer E and
G were extended when more copies were needed. A was removed from the
chase, but the running-titles were tied up with the type.
A few examples will indicate the complexity of printing edition I.
Sheets B-G of two Folger Library copies utilized seven sets of
running-titles, an abnormally large number for a play printed in this period.
These two copies both contain the same impression of six formes (see chart
below). Further, as the chart shows, the running-titles on the inner forme
of B in both copies also head the outer forme of C in one, the outer forme
of D in the other. The running-titles of the outer forme of F in both are
used in inner D and outer B in one and inner E in the other. A chart of the
sets of running-titles of these two copies shows the complications of the
printing job and perhaps of the gathering of sheets:
Sets of running-titles |
Identical running-titles in both copies |
In PR3704 1723a |
In 134674 |
1 |
B(i) |
C(o) |
D(o) |
2 |
C(i) |
E(i) |
B(o) |
3 |
F(o) |
D(i), B(o) |
E(i) |
4 |
F(i), E(o) |
5 |
|
|
C(o), (D (i) |
6 |
|
D(o) |
7 |
G (half-sheet imposition?) |
One running-title from set 2 recurs in set 5. Four from set 4 recur in set 6,
one in a different location. The running-title in set 2 which appears on C2
and E2 occurs in a different position for B3: normally it would have been
on B1, which has no running-title, but it was moved to B3, the same
position in the chase as C4, an act opening with no running-title.
Yet these two copies of edition I, of different impressions in five
formes, are far more closely related than many other extant copies. They
share, for example, at least five of six press-figures, and perhaps the sixth
(one copy has a press-figure on G4; the other lacks this leaf). A copy at
Yale University suggests the extent of variation found in edition I. Its
running-titles agree with neither Folger copy except in A, G, and the outer
forme of E. The only press-figure that it shares with either marks the outer
forme of E. Instead of the Folger's five and six press-figures, it has eleven.
Copies found in the Library of Congress, Princeton, Columbia (two),
University of
California, and the Huntington Library all share thirteen press-figures, but
only three of the figures agree with the copy at Yale and another three with
the two in the Folger Library. Most copies, in fact, add to the complexity
of identification of the impressions of I: formes with the same press-figures
may vary in running-titles; formes may vary in press-figures but not in
running-titles; or they may vary in both.
The following table shows the varying press-figures or lack of them
in different copies of I:
- Forme Pages and press-figures
- A(i) A7v-7; none
- A(o) A8v-7; A8v-broken 2[*]; none
- B(i) 11-4; 11-2; none
- B(o) 16-4; 16-2; none
- C(i) 31-2; 31-4; none
- C(o) 32-2; 20-7; none
- D(i) 47-6; 47-2; none
- D(o) 48-7; 48-2; none
- E(i) 62-7; 62-2; none
- E(o) 64-4; 64-3
- F(i) 78-2; none
- F(o) 68-2; 68-3; none
- G 87-6; 82-7; none
These press figures occur in fifteen combinations in the 31 examined
copies. The heavy use of the figures, particularly when added to the wide
variation in running-titles, indicates extraordinary printing practices.
Although the same type, with some corrections, was used throughout
the edition, sometimes the type shifted, a result of its being removed and
reinserted in chases. For example, on p. 21 the words "to me" and "or
taking" in lines 30-31 become "tome" and "ortaking" in some copies.
Further, ornaments were used, removed from the pages, and then reinserted
when the run was extended. This is most obviously apparent from an
examination of the factotum on A2, which appears with strapwork at top
and bottom in some copies of I and at the sides in others. In those copies
in which it is at the sides, the initial appears in three different positions.
The press-figures, running-titles, and ornaments in I, then, would all
suggest that the play was printed on a large scale and the type was saved
and reused several times for different impressions within the edition.
In contrast, the printing of edition III is quite regular. Running-titles
show that one press printed the inner forme of B, both formes of C, the
outer forme of F, and G by half-sheet imposition. A second press printed
both formes of D and both formes of E. A third was used for the outer
forme of B and the inner forme of F; it seems likely that this press also
printed A, although lack of running-title evidence makes it impossible to be
sure.
There was greater concern for correction in I than II or III, and in the
end the order of editions can be ascertained through examining the variants
of I, in relation to II. They include:
Forme |
Page and line |
First state |
Second state |
A(1) |
A7v.catchword |
And
|
Your
|
B(i) |
3.35 |
alone, (cor.) (?) |
alone |
|
7.29-30 |
Cone|science (?) |
Con-|science |
B(o) |
13.16 |
Myrtle. |
Myrtle?
|
C(i) |
18.7 |
you, |
you. |
|
18.32 |
but, |
but |
|
19.2 |
seiz'd, |
seiz'd |
|
19.32 |
and, |
and |
E(i) |
51.catchword |
plain |
plain- |
|
55.10 |
his own |
his |
|
55.33 |
me |
hence |
|
59.29 |
ather |
rather |
E(o) |
52.1 |
plain |
plainly |
|
53.26 |
if, |
if |
|
56.39 |
is. (cor.) |
is |
F(o) |
68.24 |
Mannor |
Manor |
|
68.28 |
Mr |
Mr. |
Variants occur in four other formes in which the order of the states is
incapable of proof:
C(o) |
28.6 |
Letter. |
Letter
|
D(i) |
34.16 |
Drawing-Room.-- |
Drawing-Room-- |
D(o) |
44.37 |
seen, |
seen |
F(i) |
71.catchword |
Myrt. |
Myr
|
The derivation of the second edition, suggested by the size and
complexity of I, can be proved by comparison of the two states of sheet E
in I with II. II is identical with the corrected state of inner E. It is like the
uncorrected state of outer E except that an obvious error (53.26) has been
corrected. The result is that while the catchword "plain-" on p. 51 of II
indicates that p. 52 should begin with "plainly", actually it begins with
"plain". This could result if II followed I and was printed from the
corrected state of inner E and the uncorrected state of outer E. It would be
impossible, however, for the variants in the two states of I to follow from
copy-text II. Therefore I must be the earlier edition. Since II is
unquestionably the intermediate text, III can only be the third
edition.
With I established as the first edition, its variants have some bearing
on an authoritative text of the play. Almost all of them are clearly errors
corrected in the second state. The two marked "(cor.)" above are correct
readings in the first state; in each case type may have been pulled out by
the ink balls or lost in the process of moving the page in and out of the
chase. The variants in outer C, outer D, and inner F probably fit into this
category also. The first listed reading of each is obviously correct. The
order is debatable in outer B although "Myrtle?" is the better
reading.
The only other forme in which obvious errors were not corrected and
therefore the order of the states might be questioned is the inner forme of
E, in which two substantive changes were made. Here, however, the
evidence of the order is incontrovertible: page 55, containing the two
variants, is one of those pages of type in edition I which was reused in II.
The type found in II could only be the last state of I. The catchword "plain"
on p. 51 in this forme was changed to "plain-" in the second state when the
first word on p. 52, "plain", was changed to "plainly" in the sentence,
"But, Sir, I see very plainly what you are going into." As one would
expect, there are fewer copies of the uncorrected state of the two formes of
sheet E, ten of 31 examined copies.
There are, of course, variants in the running-titles also.
"Coonscius" occurs in the running-titles of p. 71 (F4) in
eleven
copies and p. 53 (E3) in five of the eleven. This suggests that the aberrant
running-title was used throughout one press-run of inner F but was detected
after outer E was in the same chase. Two other entirely different settings
occur on p. 53, but the other running-titles in the forme do not
change.
Although sheets were gathered in various mixtures, examination of
these 31 copies suggests that, on the whole, uncorrected sheets were
gathered together and corrected sheets were. The oddity of this sharp
division makes it seem that at least most of the corrections were made
between press-runs. One exception is the inner forme of B; "early" copies
are found with what appears to be the corrected forme of outer B and all
other sheets. It is possible that the "first" state of inner B is actually a later
state with p. 3 (alone,) corrected. The hyphen on p. 7 (Con-|science) could
have been lost in moving the type and the error introduced by an unwary
printer repairing the line. Examples of early copies of I include Yale copy
1 and two in the Bodleian shelf-marked Malone B 109 and G.P. 63 (1);
later examples are the two at the Folger, Yale copy 3, two at the University
of Texas, and Bodleian 8° E66 (2) Jur.
Because one can distinguish early from late, it becomes possible to
establish the authoritative text including substantive revisions. There is also
ample proof of the immediate demand for thousands of copies of the printed
play. Moreover, one can recognize the scope and complexity of the printing
job, a clue to the capabilities of the print shop in 1722, when most if not
all of the type for a book of 104 pages could be stored and reused again and
again.[6]
Tonson was able to stop a London piracy advertised for 8 December
1722 by a restraining order and then an injunction issued 11 December
against Francis Clifton, Robert Tooke, John Lightbody, and Susanna
Collins.[7] Two other editions,
however, were immediately published outside
England to take advantage of the interest in Steele's play. A duodecimo
dated 1722 was printed in Dublin by A. Rhames for J. Hyde, R. Gunne, R.
Owen, E. Dobson, and P. Dugan. An octavo dated 1723 was issued by T.
Johnson with the imprint London, although it was probably printed at The
Hague late in 1722. Both of these unapproved editions followed the early
state of the first edition. Neither has any authority.
The great number of later eighteenth-century editions and translations
of The Conscious Lovers attests its continuing appeal. The
"Third Edition" was published with Tonson's imprint in 1730, the year
after Steele's death. The first edition served as copy-text for this
duodecimo. Inexplicably, its readings of the variants on page 55 of the first
edition are "his" and "me", a combination that could not result from the
copy-text. The "Fourth Edition", dated 1733, was printed for Tonson and
sold by W. Feales. An engraving by Gerard Van der Gucht was introduced.
In 1735 Tonson published another edition. In the same year Feales
produced a similar edition, bearing his own imprint and including an
imitation of the Van der Gucht engraving, a carefully copied but reversed
image. The title-page of this apparently pirated edition bears an imitation
of the Shakespeare's head printed on Tonson's 1735 title-page.
Tonson's copyright expired in 1736. A new edition appeared in 1740
with the imprint "Printed for the Booksellers in Town and Country" and a
second imitation of the Van der Gucht frontispiece. The imprint and
engraving suggest Robert Walker as the printer, a probability strengthened
by small numbers at the bottom of D1 and G1 similar to those used by
Walker to designate the parts in which he issued many plays in the
1730's.[8] Jacob and Richard Tonson
published another edition in 1741. The delay of eight years after the first
three editions, followed by the printing of six in 1730-41 parallels the play's
repertory popularity, which reached its peak in the 1730's and
1740's.
The Conscious Lovers continued in demand both on
stage
and in print in London and elsewhere. By the end of the century, however,
performances began to diminish while new editions increased. With a
growing list of partners, the Tonsons published it in 1747, 1751, 1755,
1760, 1764, and 1767. Of these partners, Lowndes, Caslon, Nicoll, and
Bladon joined with Strahan and others for still further editions in 1768,
1776, and 1782. Bell published several in his series (1776, 1782, 1791, and
1797), and Wenman issued one in 1778. Some of the later editions are cut
as the stage production was, and in some the entire text is printed but the
cuts are marked by inverted commas.
Foreign publication also grew steadily. An Italian version was
published in London in 1724, three French ones in Paris in 1736, 1778, and
1784, and two German ones in Dresden, 1752, and Leipzig, 1767. An
English edition
appeared in Göttingen in 1767. The play was also published in Dublin
(1725, 1746, 1757, 1777, 1793, and 1795), Cork (1761), Belfast (1776),
Edinburgh (1755, 1768, 1774 and two in 1782), and Glasgow (1782 and
1789).
[9]
Very possibly this list is not yet complete. Nevertheless, these 47
editions including six translations into three foreign languages demonstrate
the continuing desire for copies of the comedy which had required such
extraordinary printing procedure on first publication.
Notes