University of Virginia Library

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 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-F8 G4. Although there are differences in line-divisions, there is only one variation in pages: the last line of A5v 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