研 究 叢 書２５The Publication of the First Quarto of

Othello

小野良子

桃山学院大学総合研究所

The Publication of the First Quarto of

Othello

Yoshiko Ono―１―

TABLE OF CONTENTS
List of Plates …………………………………………………………………………３

Plates …………………………………………………………………………………４

Introduction……………………………………………………………………………１８

１．The Quarto Publisher ……………………………………………………………２０
２．Licensing and Ownership ………………………………………………………２
９
３．Authorizing the Playtext…………………………………………………………４０
４．Manuscript Culture ………………………………………………………………４６
５．Print Culture ……………………………………………………………………５１
６．Into the Library …………………………………………………………………５
５
７．Inventing Authority ……………………………………………………………６０
８．Texts of Othello………………………………………………………………７０

９．Textual Mystery …………………………………………………………………７７
１０．A New History, A New Reading ………………………………………………８２

Notes …………………………………………………………………………………８
６

Bibliography …………………………………………………………………………１０３―２―

PLATES

１．William Shakespeare, Love’s Labors Lost（１５９８）, title page, STC２２２９４
２．William Shakespeare, King Lear（１６０８）, title page, STC２２２９２
３．Christopher Marlowe, Tamburlaine（１５９０）, title page.
４．George Gascoigne, The Posies（１５７５）, title page.
５．Samuel Daniel, Delia（１５９２）, title page, STC６２５３, now STC６２４３.２.
６．Samuel Daniel, Delia（１５９４）, title page, STC６２５４, now STC６２４３.４.
７．Samuel Daniel, The Whole Workes of Samuel Daniel（１６２３）, title page, STC
６２３８.
８．Michael Drayton, Ideas Mirrour（１５９４）, title page, STC７２０３.
９．Michael Drayton, Poems by Michael Drayton Esquire（１６０８）, title page, STC
７２１８.
１０．Michael Drayton, Poems by Michael Drayton Esquyer（１６１９）, frontispiece, STC
７２２３.
１１． Tottel’s Miscellany（１５５７）, title page.
１２．Ben Jonson, Workes（１６１６）, title page.
１３． Mr. William Shakespeares Comedies, Histories, & Tragedies（１６２３）, title page,STC２２２７３.
１４． The Passionate Pilgrime（１６１２）, title page, STC２２３４３.

―３―

Figure１. Love’s Labor’s Lost（１５９８）, title page.
―４―

Figure２. King Lear（１６０８）, title page.
―５―

Figure３. Tamburlaine（１５９０）, title page.
―６―

Figure４. The Posies（１５７５）, title page.
―７―

Figure５. Delia（１５９２）, title page.
―８―

Figure６. Delia（１５９４）, title page.
―９―

Figure７. The Whole Workes of Samuel Daniel（１６２３）, title page.
―１０―

Figure８. Ideas Mirrour（１５９４）, title page.
―１１―

Figure９. Poems（１６０８）, title page.
―１２―

Figure１０. Poems（１６１９）, title page.
―１３―

Figure１１. Tottel’s Miscellany（１５５７）, title page.
―１４―

Figure１２. Workes（１６１６）, title page.
―１５―

Figure１３. Shakespeare’s Folio（１６２３）, title page.
―１６―

Figure１４. The Passionate Pilgrim（１６１２）, title page.
―１７―

INTRODUCTION

E.K.Chambers recorded the eighty-three variant spellings of Shakespeare in his

William Shakespeare : A Study of Facts and Problems（１９３０）（. １） Then how did it
happen that these variants eventually took the single form Shakespeare ? The publication history of Elizabethan drama shows that the standard spelling of the author’sname was not that of the author’s hand but that of the printer’s press. Authorship itself is hardly an authorial construct, for the very form of the author’s name is a
printing-house production.
Virtually all English books printed before eighteenth century varies to some extent
from copy to copy.（２） Shakespeare’s first Folio best illustrates the unsettled nature ofa printed text. Charlton Hinman’s １９６８ Norton facsimile of the １
６２３ first Folio displays the variability built into the practices of printing-house production.（３） The
printing-house used to correct proof during the course of printing, and then assemble
corrected and uncorrected sheets indiscriminately. Owing to this printing-house practice, it is highly probable that no two copies of a sixteenth century book could be
identical. The idea of a book embodying the final, perfected text was not a Renaissance one. Historical study of manuscript and print culture reveals the social construction of the text and the full network of agency involved in the production of the
text. The manuscript culture fostered communal authorship, a turning back and forthof scripted messages between writers. In a system of manuscript circulation of literature individual text was permeable, editorially open to amendments. In the case ofplay texts, they designed to change as the conditions of performance change. The
playtexts were revised, cut, rearranged and augmented by book-holders, copyists, andother writers, elaborated and improvised by actors in performance. Late Elizabethan
playscripts had extremely light punctuation by modern standards.（４） It was the task ofthe print shop to introduce the pointing when they published a play, and also to in―１８―troduce capitalization and italics. In the Renaissance it was the norm for printers tocustomize a play so as to make it readable.（５） From its very first appearance as text
the play had been edited, mediated by agents other than the author, and intended forthe convenience of its readers’.
Our claims about the effects of Shakespearean drama are based almost entirely on
the extant printed texts. However, so long as the printed text was simply one stage
in a continuous process, what could we accept as authentic text of Shakespeare?
Textual practice in the late twentieth century has faced with the necessity of abandoning the notion that was basic to the New Bibliography practice by W.W. Gregand Fredson Bowers, that by comparing different versions of texts, or quartos andfolios, we can arrive at a single, authentic original. We realize that any text and edition can never give us the full version of what Shakespeare really wrote.
This study will relocate the production history of the first quarto of Othello in thecomplex social process of the text’s production. The final goal is to see how thequarto publication had been enabled in the network of the manuscript and print culture in the early modern England.

―１９―CHAPTER ONE

The Quarto Publisher

Othello was first published by Thomas Walkley in １６２２, following an entry in
the Stationers’ Register of ６th October, １６２１. In the year in which the first quarto of

Othello appeared the project of the King’s Men to publish the first folio collectionof Shakespeare’s plays had been under way. The printing of the Folio was entrusted
to the Jaggards’ printing house and the work had begun no later than August of
１６２１.（１） However, it was presently interrupted for a period of more than a year forthe completion of another book. The Folio was not the only book that Jaggard wasengaged in during the period of mid-１６２１ and the end of １
６２３. Jaggard’s shop produced at least five very substantial works in addition to a number of smaller items. It
would seem very strange for the King’s Men to grant Walkley the permission to
print Othello when the Folio project had already been going forward.
However, in view of the Stationers’ Company order of ３rd May, １
６１９, requiringthat no King’s Men plays be printed without the players’ consent, should we suppose that Walkley obtained the permission to print Othello ? Before coming straightto the answer, let us take the detour and go back to where Walkely started his publication business.
Thomas Walkley started bookselling and publishing in １６１８. In his first few years
in business Walkley entangled himself in serious financial difficulties, which led tolaw suits with another stationer, John Beale, and with one of his authors, Sir Michael Everard. Walkley’s first brush with the law was the fraudulently issued （２） collection of poems in １
６２０. John Beale, who printed for Walkley The Workes ofMaster George Wither denounced the collection as an imperfect and erroneous―２０―Copie... which the Stationer hath ... falsely affirmed to bee Corrected and Augmented for his owne Aduantage （３）without the author’s consent. Beale had sued
Walkley for not paying his bills and inevitably the latter asked for the case to beheard in the Court of Requests. The second law suit（４）that Walkley brought with abill of complaint concerned a treatise Bellona’s Embrion , written by Sir Michael
Everard, who died in １
６２１. His widow, Lady Margaret, asked her husband’s cousin,
Dr John Everard, to care for the publication of the treatise. Dr Everard persuaded
Walkley to publish the book and seven hundred and fifty copies were supposed to beprinted. Their financial arrangements were : Lady Margaret paid various sums to Dr
Everard, who in turn paid Walkley for the purchase of paper and the payment forthe printer. But Walkley, already heavily in debt, did not pay the printer and used
the money instead to settle with other creditors. The printer, Bernard Alsop, refused
to continue the assigned job after perfecting thirty-eight sheets, and Walkley persuaded Thomas Snodham to take upon himself to go on with the printing. But Walkley was preoccupied with the printing of Edmund Bolton’s Nero Caesar , and neglect to set Bellona’s Embrion to press. After all, Walkley registered Bellona’s Em-

brion on １４th February, １６２３, presumably after Lady Margaret’s death, but the booknever appeared in print.
Walkley published five King’s Men plays. One of them was Othello and the rest
were Beaumont and Fletcher plays, A King and No King, The Maid’s Tragedy ,Phylaster, and Thierry and Theodoret . Contrary to custom, all but the last one wereentered in the Stationers’ Register without any hint of their author（s）or of the company that had performed them. As Honigmann notes, when the author was famousand the play had been a success in the theatre, more often than not one or both facts
would be recorded in the Register entry. （５） Walkley entered Othello in the Register on ６th October, １６２１. In W.W.Greg’s analysis the date made it unlikely that thefirst quarto had been published without the sanction of the King’s Men and thus they
doubtless reserved the right of reprinting as long as the First Folio had been already―２１―

in hand.（６） Greg’s suggestion is based on his assumption that the printing of the Folio had been well under way. As far as the Beaumont and Fletcher plays were concerned, The Maid’s Tragedy was registered on ２８th April, １
６１８, and was publishedin the following year without the players’ consent. A King and No King was registered by Edward Blount on ７th August, １６１８, and Walkley published it without
Blount’s authority in the following year.
The sequence of events possibly led to the action of the Lord Chamberlain, who
sent to the Stationers a letter which condemned the stealing of playtexts by printersand stationers. In reply to the letter the Stationers’ Company ordered on ３rd May,
１６１９, that no playes that his Maiesties players do play shalbe printed without theconsent of somme of them. （７） The letter, in fact, had been lost and that the Stationers’ Order was duly followed by the supposed letter from the Lord Chamberlain is amodern critical reconstruction. Greg explained the process as follows : On ３rd May
１６１９ the Court of the Stationers’ Company had before it for consideration a letterfrom the Lord Chamberlain, whereupon it was ordered that in future no plays belonging to the King’s Men should be printed without their consent. There can be noreasonable doubt that the players were behind it. （８） The letter itself has disappeared,
but Greg drew the conclusion from a letter of like tenor （９）addressed to the Company on １
０th June, １６３７, by Philip, Earl of Pembroke, and Montgomery, who had
succeeded his brother in his title and office in １６３０. The １６３７ letter went as follows :Wheras complaint was heretofore presented to my Deare brother & predecessor
by his Maiestes servants the Players, that some of the Company of Printers &Stationers had procured, published & printed diuerse of their bookes of Comedyes, Tragedyes, Cronicle Historyes, and the like, which they had（for the speciall service of his Maiestye & for their owne vse）bought and provided at very
Deare & high rates, By meanes wherof not onely they themselues had much
―２２―

preiudice, but the bookes much corruption to the iniury and disgrace of the
Authors ; And thereupon the Masters & Wardens of the company of printers &stationers were advised by my Brother to take noticed therof & to take Orderfor the stay of any further Impression of any of the Playes or Interludes of his
Maiuestes servants without their consentes...（１０）In the letter of１６３７the Lord Chamberlain complained that the first warning had notbeen taken seriously, which led him to write even more explicitly :Notwithstanding which I am informed that some Coppyes of Playes belonging
to the King & Queenes servants the Players, & purchased by them at Deare
rates, haueing beene lately stolen or gotten from them by indirect meanes, arenow attempted to bee printed, & that some of them are at the Presse & ready tobee printed ... For prevention & redresse wherof it is desired that Order bee giuen & entred by the Master & Wardens of the Company of Printers & Stationers that if any Playes bee already entred, or shall hereafter bee brought vnto theHall to bee entred for printing, that notice therof bee giuen to the Kinges &Queenes servants the Players, & an inquiery made of them to whome they doe
belong, And that none bee suffered to bee printed vntill the assent of their Maiestes sayd servants bee made appeare to the Master & Wardens of the Company
of Printers & Stationers by some Certificate in writeing vnder the handes ofIohn Lowen & Ioseph Taylor for the Kings servants....（１１）In our modern critical consensus（１２）the１６１９letter was supposed to be written against
the １６１９ publication of the Pavier quartos, the first abortive attempt to bring out
Shakespeare’s plays as a collection.（１３） Andrew Murphy in his latest book on a history of Shakespeare publishing（２００３）still believes that the Pavier collection led theKing’s Men to seek the help of the Lord Chamberlain in securing their interest in―２３―

their textual property.（１４） Honigmann, on the other hand, casts a doubt on the generalassumption and argues that it was the Lord Chamberlain’s letter of １６１９ that had intervened the printing of The Maid’s Tragedy by Thomas Walkley.（１５） Paying attention to the１
６３７ letter’s statement that stationers had procured, published & printed
diverse of their books , Honigmann suggests that the statement refers to the books
published for the first time, unlike the Pavier quartos which were all reprinted fromother quarto editions.
The Shakespearean playtexts of the King’s Men had never been appeared in print
since １６０９, when Troilus and Cressida was published. The epistle printed in thesecond issue of the first quarto referred to the King’s Men and their reluctance topublish their best plays. In fact, no Shakespearean plays had been printed until
Walkley published the first quarto of Othello . The Pavier collection consisted of ten
plays, which Pavier attributed to Shakespeare, and all of them had been already appeared in different quartos. Then a possible explanation of the １
６１９ letter could be,
as Honigmann proposes, that Walkley’s unauthorized endeavour to publish the firstquarto of The Maid’s Tragedy in １
６１９ caused the King’s Men to ask the Lord
Chamberlain’s intervention.
In this sequence of events Walkley’s acquisition of Othello manuscript could also
be suspicious. Why did the King’s Men allow the publication when they had opposed the publication ever since １６０９? Walkley had financial difficulties in thosedays and his economic status had a bearing on his publications. He might have expected that the new Shakespeare quarto would never fail him and that he could recover his lost reputation as a stationer. It is noteworthy that Walkley tried to capitalize on Shakespeare’s name to guarantee his publication for the reader. Walkley included his address to the reader, placed Shakespeare as author
the centre of the commodification strategy ;The Stationer to the Reader―２４―

and his work at

To set forth a book without an epistle, were like to the old English proverb, A
blue coat without a badge , and the author being dead, I thought good to takethat piece of work upon me : to commend it, I will not, for that which is good,
I hope every man will commend, without entreaty : and I am the bolder, because the author’s name is sufficient to vent his work. Thus leaving every one
to the liberty of judgement : I have ventured to print this play, and leave it to
the general censure.
Yours,
Thomas Walkley（１６）The first appearance of Shakespeare’s name on the title page was the first quarto
of Love’s Lavour’s Lost printed in １５９８（Figure１）by William White for Cutbert
Burby.（１７） The １６
０８ quarto of King Lear printed by Nicholas Okes for Nathaniel
Butter（Figure２）stepped further to prominently feature Shakespeare’s name at the
top of the title page. Butter and Okes adopted the same strategy of authorial selfpresentation used by Ben Jonson and his printers on a number of quarto title pages
published before１６０８. As Douglas Brooks comments, sudden and anomalous typographic over-determination of the playwright’s authorship probably had little to dowith literary ambition or authorial self-promotion （１８）of Shakespeare himself in contrast to Jonson. Yet it is likely that Butter and Okes expected their first Shakespeare
play to turn a quick profit.
Playtext quartos printed in the late sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries generally did not record the presence of an author / authors. A prominent statement thatappeared on virtually every quarto was formulaic, advertising its theatrical production with the introduction of the acting company and their patrons, the specific theatrical location（for example, at the Globe on the bankside ）, and a reception history−a suggestion that the play in its original format was received with great applause.
Although the acting companies and printers varied widely, the emphasis on the―２５―

playtext’s theatricality remained in most quarto versions.（１９） In those days title pages
were put up on posts and elsewhere for the advertisement of the books.（２０） Thus theprominent appearance of the author’s name on the title page of１
６０８ King Lear also
reflected the publisher’s marketing strategy. The title page read as follows :M. William Shak-speare : His true chronicle historie of the life and death ofKing Lear and his three daughters. With the vnfortunate life of Edgar, sonneand heire to the Earle of Gloster, and his sullen and assumed humor of Tom ofBedlam : As it was played before the kings maiestie at Whitehall vpon S.
Stephans night in Christmas hollidayes. By his maiesties seruants playing vsually at the Gloabe on Bancke−side.

The front page communicated three kinds of information : the author, the play’s contents, and performance. The marketing strategy discernible behind the front page isthat the provided information would whet a customer’s appetite for the new play by
the leading playwright of the day.
６０９ was the first
The second issue of the two Troilus and Cressida plays in １
Shakespeare quarto with a publisher’s address to the reader, recommending the artistic value of Shakespeare’s drama. In the Address, the publisher Henry Walley compared Shakespeare’s play with the best Commedy in Terence or Plautus and thenprophesied that when［Shakespeare］is gone, and Commedies out of sale, you will
scramble for them, and set vp a new English Inquisition. （２１） The only other reader
address to preface a Shakespeare quarto was written by Thomas Walkley in his firstquarto of Othello in １６２２. By the time he published Othello quarto, Shakespeare
had already emerged as a Jonsonian author figure who authorized the playtext muchas a poet authorized a book of poetry. Walkley seemed to have learned the marketing strategy of authorizing the playtext and counted on the author’s name as marketable commodity.
―２６―

Yet, as Peter Blayney notes, we should not assume that there was a ready market
for printed plays, that publishers were eager to get hold of the manuscripts of popular works which would promise a quick profit, and that they were so eager that they
were willing to resort to any means to lay their hands on play manuscripts.（２２） Publishing plays would not usually have seen as a shortcut to wealth. Blayney’s analysis
of Renaissance publishing practices reveals that only a very small number of new
plays were published each year.（２３） Blayney divides what he thinks might be called
the age of the English printed play into three twenty-year periods :１５８３-１６０２,
１６０３-１６２２, and １６２３-１６４２. The number of new plays published in each of the three
periods he calculates is respectively :９６, １１５, and １６０. Then the average number of
new plays published each year was ４.８ in the first period, ５.７５ in the second, and ８.
０ in the last. The number was fairly small in terms of marketing ; and yet a demandfor printed plays certainly existed and a stationer who acquired the right play at theright time could make a satisfactory profit. For example, Andrew Wise was among
the lucky few. He struck gold three times in a row by picking what would become
the three best-selling Shakespeare quartos as the first three plays of his brief career.

Richard II and Richard III were highly popular and had run through three editions
between １５９７ and １６０２, and １ Henry IV had appeared two editions in １
５９８ and
１５９９.
From the economic point of view, publishing was a venture business. What madethe venture worth the risk was the chance that a well-chosen play would merit a second edition during its publisher’s lifetime. The first edition made a total profit ofnearly ７
５% over the direct costs which included the price of the manuscript, authority, license, and registration. If the publisher commissioned a second edition of ８００
copies at the same rate as before, in Blayney’s hypothesis, he would now make theprofit of９
１.８% instead of the original profit of ４
８.３% on wholesale copies. From an
edition of １,２００ or １,５００ copies, he would make １２１.２% or １３８.３% respectively.（２４）
His profits on copies sold outside the Stationer’s Company and on those he retailed―２７―

himself would be correspondingly much higher. A second edition of ８
００ copies
would make １
２６%. Similarly, a second edition of １,２００ copies would make about
１６１%, or one of １,５００ copies, １８１%. The return from a second or later edition
would adequately justify the original risk. However, in fact, fewer than ２１% of theplays published in sixty years between １５８３ and １６４２ reached a second edition inside nine years.（２５） This means that no more than one play in five would have returned the publisher’s initial investment inside five years. Not one in twenty would
have paid for itself during its first year. Of the plays that did reach a second edition, a few went through a respectable series of reprinting.
Then it is noticeable that by the time the first Folio appeared in １６２３ ten Shakespearean plays excluding the １６１９ Pavier collection had run more than two editions
and three of them were among the eleven best-selling plays between １
５８３ and
１６４
２. １Henry IV had run through seven editions since１
５９８, and Richard III andRichard II both had reached five editions since １５９７. When Walkley chose Othelloin his financial difficulties leading to several law suits, it was his sense of the publishing market that had encouraged him to gamble again. The publishing of a new
Shakespeare quarto for the first time since １
６０９, in Walkley’s estimation, would
have been expected to stimulate prospective customers’ interests.

―２８―CHAPTER TWO

Licensing and Ownership

It is not certain how Walkley acquired the manuscript of Othello , though somebibliographers such as Honigmann assume that he would have resorted to piracy. In
any case, Walkley entered Othello in the Stationers’ Register on ６th October, １６２１,
which means Walkley obtained the right to publish the play. Still the question remains as to the kind of manuscript that Walkley acquired. Was it an authorial manuscript that King’s Men held for the performance? To grasp the kind of manuscript,
we must, first of all, examine the requirements for legal printing in those days.
Before a book could legally be printed, certain requirements had to be met. In
１９３０ Greg suggested that there were essentially three requirements : authority, license, and entrance.（１） In fact, the Stationers’ Company changed the usage of thoseterms over time. In Blayney’s analysis authority and license before １６３７ were theonly two requirements, and before the １
６２０s neither license nor entrance usuallymeant what literary historians usually mean by them.（２）The first requirement was originally called authority or allowance : The approval of a text by a representative of either the church or the state. Authority of
one kind or another had been officially required of every new printed book since the
１５３０s. During the first half of Elizabeth’s reign the rules for allowance were definedby article ５
１ of her Injunctions of １５５９.（３） In １５８６ the regulation was replaced by adecree of Star Chamber, which remained in force until superseded by a new Star
Chamber decree in １６３７.（４） Each formulation differed in detail, but each placed theprincipal authority in the hands of the Bishop of London and the Archbishop of
Canterbury. The purpose of the regulations was to prevent the publication of unac―２９―

ceptable material and to justify the punishment of anyone who overstepped the line.
Plays were allowed for the stage by the Master of the Revels. But allowance forprinting was given by the same ecclesiastical authorities who allowed books of all
kinds−occasionally the bishop or Archbishop, but most of the day-to-day allowance
was given by chaplains to whom they delegated the task. In late １
６０６ the Master ofthe Revels was granted the sole right to allow plays for the press and he continued
to authorize plays for printing until １６１２（. ５） In １６１３ the ecclesiastical authorities
started allowing plays for the press again.
The second requirement for printing the play was originally called license . Blayney’s analysis on the Stationers’ early records（６）（including more than two thousandbook entries before１
５９０）shows that the word license meant the Company’s permission to print, which was fundamentally different from authority. One or more of
the three elected officers of the Company（the master and wardens）sign the manuscript and those signatures constitute the Stationer’s license. License was refused
when a manuscript had not been authorized or the officers considered the signed
authority to be of inadequate rank. However, they could and often did license it on
condition that it should not be printed until further, better, or lawful authority had
been obtained. Alternatively, they might license it when the publisher would takefull responsibility in case of trouble. They could license it without authority if they
could agree with the publisher that the book could offend nobody. The Company’s
license had been granted by a royal charter of Queen Mary in１５５７. For the first few
years a licensed book had to be actually printed before ownership of the copy could
be claimed. During the early １
５８０s the rules were modified so that license and ownership were conferred simultaneously.（７） What we now call a register entry became
the entry of record that proved ownership.
Yet the ownership of the copy was not a generalized right to an intellectual property ; and thus the publisher of a book had no control over any form of dissemination such as acting, public reading, and manuscript copying, other than publication in―３０―

print. The owner of a copy had not only the exclusive right to reprint the text, butalso the right to recover his cost. He could therefore ask the Company’s protection
if any book threatened his fair chance to dispose of unsold copies of an existing edition.（８） The Company’s license was thus intended to regulate problems of infringement. For example, Shakespeare’s Henry V, Taming of the Shrew, King John, andKing Lear could not have been published without the consent of the publisher ofthe previously printed book with a similar title or story. Trying to license Shakespeare’s Henry V in １６００, Millington and Busby would have needed the consent ofThomas Creede, who had published The Famous Victories of Henry the Fifth in
１５９８. Shakespeare’s Taming of the Shrew and King John could not have been included in the First Folio without the consent of the owners of the anonymous Tam-ing of a Shrew and Troublesome Reign of King John . Butter and Busby likewise
could not have published King Lear（１６０８）without the consent of the owner ofKing Leir（１６０５）.
A third requirement was entrance.

While authority and license were officiallycompulsory, entrance in the register book of copies was voluntary. Greg thought thatentrance had to follow authority and license. His supposition was based on a recordof１
５９７that described a printer’s offence as printing a book disorderlie without aucthoritie lycence and entraunce .（９） Leo Kirschbaum argued that registration was nota requirement for publication, by showing that scores of unregistered books were assigned by their original publishers to others with the approval of the Court of Assistants, the governing body of the Company.（１０） Kirschbaum suggested that the act ofpublication itself established ownership of a copy. Blayney examines both Greg andKirschbaum and concludes that entrance was not yet mandatory in １
６１７. During
the １５８０s the clerk, Richard Collings, began to think of an entrance as essentiallythe same as the license it recorded. In August １
５８６ he wrote this entrance insteadof license and made the change permanent with one exception.（１１） In November
１５８７for the first time a copy was entered and by the end of１
５８８ Entered ... for―３１―

his copy had established itself as the standard wording. By the turn of the sixteenth
century entrance and license had become interchangeable in other contexts, too.
Entrance had been certainly part of the customary and recommended procedure. In
１６２２ the Court order stepped further to make it obligatory. The rules concerning theentry may be changing. The first evidence was found in the Court orders :that noe Printer shall print anie booke except the Clarke of the Companies namebe to it is signifie that it is entred in the hall Booke according to order.（１２）The order, however, had no visible effect on the number of books printed without
registration during the１
６２０s, and, as Blayney notes, a total of five fines for printing
without entrance in the next fifteen years suggests the little possibility of vigilant enforcement.（１３） When the Star Chamber proclaimed a decree in １６３７, every publisher
was commended for the first time to register every book. The decree ordered thatevery book printed thereafter shall be first lawfully licensed and authorized ... andshall be also first entred into the Registers Booke of the Company of Stationers （. １４）

Since an entry of record was the only unquestionable evidence of ownership ofthe copy, though not the only possible evidence, Thomas Walkley’s entry of Othelloin the Stationers’ Register certainly established his ownership. This means that
Walkley was granted permission to print Othello and the right to recover his printing costs by prohibiting other printers’ infringements. After all, Walkley was first in
the field and eventually it was the King’s Men or Folio publishers who had to ask
permission to include Othello in the Folio. The King’s Men had been allowed for
exclusive performance of Othello on the stage, but this never meant that they had
been simultaneously granted the right for the press. As Greg proved that copyright quarrels between stationers could be resolved by an exchange of their―３２―

own copy-right, （１５） the potential conflicts between Walkley and the Folio publishers
might have been soughted out by such a compromise. In fact, while The King’s Men
were allowed to issue Folio Othello one year after the publication of Walkley’s
Quarto Othello , Walkley aquired the corrected text of Beaumont and Fletcher play,

Philaster , from the King’s Men and published the revised second edition in １６２２.
Walkley had published the first edition in１６２０. If Walkley and the King’s Men had
confronted each other as a consequence of Walkley’s publication of King’s Men
playtexts between１６２０and１６２２, the second edition of Philaster could not have appeared. At any rate, Walkley was granted the Stationers’ license for the press by entering his copies even if he had aquired them against the wishes of the grand possessors .
Yet registration was not a certification to specify the kind of copies that the publisher had brought in. It should be reminded again that the copy for the stage and theone for the press had been gone through different censorship systems for the license.
When the King’s Men prepared Othello for a court performance in １６０４, they submitted a theatrical script to the Master of the Revels, Edmond Tilney, who served inthis role from １
５８１ to his death in １
６１０. Very little survives to attest to the precise
censorship practices of Tilney because his office-books have been lost.（１６） However,
it is clear that by the early １
５９０s the usual process was for the master to peruse ascript, rather than to see a rehearsal as Philostrate did in A Midsummer Night’s

Dream, in order to insist on any changes he felt necessary, then to append his allowance to the corrected version, which thereafter was regarded as the allowed
copy −the only version to be used as the basis for performance. The allowance
was not to the playwright but to the company that was to perform the play. If theKing’s Men had intended to publish Othello after the performance, as the license
for the performance was not acceptable for the printing, they inevitably would have
had to go to the Church Court of High Commission for the license for the press.
Until the end of １
６０６ plays were usually allowed for printing by the same ecclesi―３３―

astical authorities who allowed books of all kinds. Their allowance authorized thescript and then the Stationers’ Company gave sanction to registration and publication. By the hand of different censor each licensed script would have differed in detail even if the King’s Men had prepared the same script, which, however, was far
from probable.
The allowed copy−the licensed version to be used as the basis for staging−andthe script for the press were approximately never identical. Andrew Gurr has distinguished between two kinds of theatrical script, maximal and minimal. （１７） The
maximalcopy bore the official license from the Master of the Revels, and was thefullest version of the play. The minimal copy was a performance playbook, a revised version of the maximal copy to fit the circumstances of performance. Thisis the kind of script that would have been sent to the printer. It is also the kind of
script that might have been made available to a private patron. Virtually all stagingsof a play, including the original staging, would have been redactions from the maximal copy.
As far as Walkley was concerned, it was improbable for him to obtain the authorial manuscript from the company since the King’s Men had the Staying Order in
１６１９ to prohibit publication of their playtexts without their consent and no evidence
showed that they gave permission to Walkley. Then it is most probable that Walkley would have acquired either a script by performance dictation, or a copy for a private patron, though it is possible, as Honigmann suspects, that the authorized text
would have been stolen or missing and eventually fallen to Walkley’s hands. Eitherway, it was fortunate for Walkley that no one had tried to register Othello for thepress until Walkley’s registration. Othello had four recorded performances before
the publication of the quarto : the first court performance in １６０４, the London andOxford performances of １６１０, and the court performance of １
６１２-１６１３. It is curious that the King’s Men had never tried to have Othello printed until they included
it in the First Folio in１６２３.
―３４―

In the early seventeenth century expectations to make a profit with a newly published playbook seem to have been low, as the number of plays registered for thepress between November１６０１and１６０３counted only seven.（１８） The overall demandfor playbooks was unimpressive and thus it is likely that many of those that saw
print were offered to, rather sought out by, their publishers （１９）as Blayney suggests.
One stationer with whom Shakespeare and / or his fellows built up commercial relationships was James Roberts. Having been granted the exclusive privilege of printing
５９４ until ２７th of October in １
６１５,（２０） Roberts seems to
playbills from ３１st of May in １
have had regular dealings with theatre companies. His publication history gives one
example to show how the stationer coped with a temporary glut in the playbook
market. Roberts entered The Merchant of Venice（２２nd of July, １５９８）, an anonymous play, A Larum for London（２９th of May, １６００）, Hamlet（２６th of July, １
６０２）,
and Troilus and Cressida（７th of February, １
６０３）. Troilus and Cressida was enteredon condition that it should not be printed until Roberts had acquired sufficient aucthority for yt, （２１） and this was not the only play that Roberts entered without authority. It seems unlikely that he had had any problems obtaining the necessary authority
for the printing if he had tried. Yet when the stationer thought twice before investing in the playbook publication and considered the possible financial risk, he would
choose the alternative to sell the right to fellow stationers to make a handsome profit
on the deal. This was what Roberts had thought. First of all, he saved １０ shillingts（２２）because he did not have the manuscript authorized. Moreover, he could have
prevented the financial loss himself. Roberts sold Troilus and Cressida to Richard
Bonian and Henry Walley, who entered the play in １６０９ and published it in thesame year.
Then what happened to the manuscript of Othello between its first appearance on
the stage and Walkley’s registration in １６２１? It is possible that King’s Men chose topostpone the publication of the play in the expectation that certain gentleman wouldorder and pay a handsome sum for a scribal copy, as Humphrey Moseley was paid
―３５―

by Gentlemen two or three times as much for a manuscript playbook.（２３） Or rather,
the King’s Men hoped to profit from a more prestigious and lucrative form of publication than print.

When we examine the evolving publication history of Shake-speare’s playbooks during his lifetime, it is clear that the Shakespeare’s company
changed their strategy in publishing his plays sometime after １
６０３. Lukas Erne distinguishes between three chronologically distinct groups of plays and their publication history（２４）: The first group written between １
５９４ and １５９９ consists of roughlya dozen plays and they were, as a rule, published a couple of years after their composition. The second group of plays are : Julius Caesar, As You Like It, Hamlet,

Twelfth Night, and Troilus and Cressida . They were partly published and partly
not. The third group consists of all of Shakespeare’s remaining plays. As a rule,these plays were not published before Shakespeare’s death : Measure for Measure,

Othello, All’s Well That Ends Well, Timon of Athens, King Lear, Macbeth, Anthony and Cleopatra, Pericles, Coriolanus, The Winter’s Tale, Cymbeline, The Tempest, Henry VIII, and The Two Noble Kinsmen . Of these fourteen plays, only two（ King Lear and Pericles ）were published during Shakespeare’s life time.
The entries in the Stationer’s Register continued with regularity until shortly before Queen Elizabeth’s death, but became very rare during the years of King James’
reign. The number of other plays published during the same years shows the peculiarity of the publication strategy of the King’s Men. From １
６０５ to １６０８ no fewer
than fifty-two plays written for the commercial stage were published. For the ten
years after １６０３, the printed Shakespeare’s plays accounted for less than ４% of all
the commercial plays, down from more than１８% in the ten years prior to１
６０３.（２５）
Readers’ appetite for new playbooks had been a common grudge to be resented byliterary ambitious playwrights. John Webster, for example, complained of playgoers
who resemble those ignorant asses（who visiting stationers Shoppes their vse is not
to inquire for good bookes, but new bookes） in the prefatory address To theReader in the１
６１２quarto of The White Devil （. ２６） A similar lament about playgo―３６―

ers’ preferences had been articulated more graphically by an anonymous playwrightin a note To the Reader in the１
６０８quarto text of The Familie of Love :Plaiesin this Citie are like wenches new falne to the trade, onelie desired of your neatest
gallants, whiles the’are fresh : When they grow stale they must be vented by
Termers and Cuntrie chapmen. （２７） The vncapble multitude, （２８） in Webster’s phrase,would prefer anything new. A new play, then, from the view point of marketingstrategy, did not need extra publicity. When a play first reached the stage, it was
likely to attract more spectators simply because it was new, as Henslowe’s diarydemonstrated that the figures were consistently much higher for new plays than for
old ones. Erne notes :Selling a manuscript to a publisher could have been a wayof securing free promotion for a revival when a playbook would have been sold inbookshops and advertised with title pages put up on posts in London. （２９）Published playbooks may well have recommended plays to theatregoers. This
strategy known today as publicity, or advertising seems to have been promotedeven in the plague years. During the first years of James’ reign, the plague caused
frequent closure of London’s public theatres, roughly three months out of four between March １６０３ and December １
６１０.（３０） The closure, however, had never affected
print publication of most playwrights and companies as seen in the number of published plays during the years. Earne argues that it may have seemed pointless tosell manuscripts at a time when conditions remained precarious and playing was impossible most of the time （３１）; and yet if publicity was the players’ major motive forprint publication as Erne notes, publication may have been the sole means for themto stay in touch with their customers. Yet it still invites speculation why Shakespeare
and his fellows had been temporarily reluctant to sell their new plays contrary to thepractice of other playwrights and companies during the same years.
By the time the company became King’s servants, Shakespeare had enjoyed thefame of the best-published dramatist with far more title page ascriptions than any
other English playwright dead or alive.

Shakespeare had been promoted to be―３７―

among the literary giants of his own time by Francis Meres in １
５９８. Meres published Palladis Tamia , where he singled out six English poets for special praise :Sidney, Spenser, Daniel, Drayton, Warner, and Shakespeare. The five poets except
Shakespeare were a reasonable choice at the time it was made : Sidney was the paragon of his age ; Spenser, whose Faerie Queene had been published in １５９０ in threebooks and in １
５９６ in six books ; Samuel Daniel was a prestigious courtly poet andamong his works were the highly esteemed sonnet collection Delia（１５９２）, and averse epic on The Wars of the Roses, Civil Wars（１５９５）in four books ; Michael
Drayton had had a series of verse histories published− Peirs Graveston（n.d., entered
３rd December, １５９３, rpt. １５９５ and １５９６）, Robert, Duke of Normandy（１５９６）, andMortimeriados（１５９６）. Drayton also had published England’s Heroical Epistles（１５９７）, which went through five editions. Among his other works were : volumesof pastoral eclogues modeled on Spenser’s Shepeardes Calender, Idea, The

Shepeardes Garland（１５９３）; short lyrics, Ideas Mirrour（１５９４）; narrative poetry,
Endimion and Phoebe（１５９５）; and a secular saint’s life, Matilda（１５９４）. Drayton
was much appreciated and published in １５９８. William Warner published a verse
５８６, which was enlarged in the edichronicle Albion’s England in four books in １
tions of１５８９,１５９２, and１５９６to six, nine, and twelve books respectively.
Daniel, Drayton, and Warner, not to mention Sidney and Spenser, were the literary giants and they were frequently quoted in another influential poetic anthology,

England’s Parnassus（１６００）. The anthology quoted more than fifty poets, of whom
Spenser was cited３８６passages, Drayton,２
２５, Warner,１７１, and Daniel,１
４０. Sidney
only received ５７ passages and Shakespeare was quoted ９５, less often than Sir John
Harington, Joshua Sylvester, and Thomas Lodge. When Meres placed Shakespeare
among the best appreciated contemporary English poets, Shakespeare’s name had
never appeared on a single title page of his printed playbook.

Only Venus andAdonis（１５９３）and The Rape of Lucrece（１５９４）had been published under Shakespeare’s name before １５９８. Late in １
５９６ or in １５９７, the Shakespeares acquired a―３８―coat of arms. By １
５９８ Shakespeare had become a gentleman of means. Shakespeare’s social mobility and Meres’ high praise seem to have initiated a whole seriesof attempts to capitalize on the name of Shakespeare.
As Earne notes, no playwrights’ name appeared as suddenly and as often as
Shakespeare’s did between １５９８ and １６００（. ３２） Around the year of １
５９８, publishers
and booksellers seem to have expected the name to sell playbooks. The Passionate

Pilgrim, published by William Jaggard in １５９９ contained Shakespeare’s sonnets（１３８ and １４４）, three sonnets from Love’s Lavour’s Lost

and fifteen non-Shakespearean poems. This collection was ascribed to Shakespeare on the title page.
In １６００ a miscellany, England’s Helicon, reprinted five of the poems in Passionate

Pilgrim, attributing only one of them to Shakespeare. Within the next ten years,
four non-Shakespearean plays were published with title page bearing his name or initials : The True Chronicle Historie of the whole life and death of Thomas Lord
Cromwell. As it hath beene sundrie times publikely Acted by the Right Honorable
the Lord Chamberlaine his Seruants Written by W.S.（１６０２）; The LONDON
Prodigall. As it was plaide by the Kings Maiesties seruants. By William Shakespeare（１６０５）;

THE PVRITAINE OR THE WIDDOVV of Watling-street. Actedby the children of Paules. Written by W.S.（１６０７）; and A YORKSHIRE Tragedy. Not so New as Lamentable and true. Acted by his Maiesties Players at the
Globe. Written by W.Shakespeare（１６０８）. Counterfeiting Shakespeare continued
just before the １６２３ Folio publication by the King’s Men : The second and third
quarto of The Troublesome Raigne of King John（１６１１／１６２２）, the third edition of

The Passionte Pilgrim（１６１２）, the second quarto of Thomas Lord Cromwell（１６１３）, the Pavier quartos of A Yorkshire Tragedy and Sir John Oldcastle（１６１９）. Walkley’s acquisition of the Othello manuscript and the publication of thequarto in １６２２ was carried out during the same period that the author’s name had
been counted on as profitable in the publishing market.

―３９―CHAPTER THREE

Authorizing the Playtext

Before the beginning of Shakespeare’s dramatic career, playwright’s name wastypically absent from the title page of a printed playbook as Marlowe’s in the １５９０
edition of Tamburlaine（Figure ３）. The publication of commercial plays performedby adult companies in public playhouses had been an extremely rare phenomenon
before １５９０. There was no established readership for commercial plays. However,things radically changed when Jones published Tamburlaine in １５９０.

The huge

stage success of Tamburlaine enabled Jones’ a groundbreaking publishing ventureof playbooks. Within the next three years, more than twenty playtexts found theirway into print and three plays, The Three Ladies of London（first published in
１５８４）, Tamburlaine, and The Spanish Tragedy, were even reprinted. The early
printing history of The Spanish Tragedy −unusually well documented owning to therecords of the court of the Stationers’ Company−suggests that printers and publishers were growing more confident of the commercial viability of playtexts. Moreover,editions of Tambulaine and The Spanish Tragedy in the early １
５９０s adapted theplaytext so as to make them suitable for reading. In １
５９２ Edward White publishedhis edition of The Spanish Tragedy, which contained the publisher’s note suggestingthat the printed text was not simply a record of a performance but a document that
had been specifically prepared for the easier understanding to every public
reader. （１）Elizabethan publishers seem to have realized the marketing strategy to turnplaytexts into more respectable, readable printed matter. Associating a play with the
playwright as author was another way of legitimating the playtext. For the life span
―４０―

of the London professional theatre, extending from the opening of the James Burbage’s playhouse, The Theatre, in １５７６ to the closing of the theatres in １
６４２, themost legible pattern is, according to Annals of English Drama, the change in theauthorial status of playtexts from anonymous to named. Brook’s survey of the data
drawn from Annals （２）notes : between the year of １５８０ and １５８９, ５
８ out of １００ titles were attributed to an author / authors ; and for the next decade between １５９０
and １５９９, １４４ out of ２６３ titles were either single or multiple authored. Figures forthe following decade show a significant increase in authorial attribution. Between
１６００ and １６０９, ２
２１ out of ２９７ titles, which rated ７５%, were attributed an author /authors. Roughly half of the dramatic texts were produced in the last two decadesof the sixteenth century, but in the first decade of the seventeenth century the rate
went up to７
５%. The majority of titles and authors listed in Annals for the two decades between １５９０ and １６１０ are taken from the records that Philip Henslowe kept
during eighteen years from １５９２ to １
６０９ of his involvement with the professional
theatre. Bentley finds ２
８２ different plays documented by Henslowe, forty of which
are still extant.（３） For １
７０ of these plays Henslowe’s records are our only source of
information during this period. According to Bentley’s analysis based on the figures
provided by Henslowe’s records, between１５９０and１６４２ there probably were written as many as ５００ plays of which we know not even the titles. （４） The survival
rate of known titles for the entire sixty-six-year span of the professional theatre is４０%（５）; and thus complete reliance on Annals for information about dramatic
authorship can be somewhat treacherous. Yet if we examine the extant drama fromthe two decades documented by Henslowe, as Brooks does, it is tempting to speculate that a play attributed to a single author was more likely to survive. For theyears between １５９０ and １６１０, １
２５ dramatic texts, which rates ２９% of the total extant printed drama, indicate authorship. Of that total, １
１８ plays−９４% of authoredtexts−are attributed to single authors. The remaining seven plays are attributed tomore than one author.
―４１―

A significant number of anonymously printed playbooks in the １５８０s and the
１５９０s suggests publishers’ lack of interest in the playwright in the late sixteenth century. All play entries in the Stationers’ Register indicates that stationers became
more or less indifferent to registering dramatic authorship after the faithful transcription of the author attribution that appeared on the title page.（６） When professional
companies began to form in the last two decades of the sixteenth century, the nameof the company that registered the manuscript to be published was frequently designated to fulfill the author function. Sometimes actors’ names served to authorize theplaytext. A good example is the play A Knack to Know a Knave, performed by
the Lord Strange’s Men in １５９２ and published in １
５９４. The title page illustrated
that it hath sundrie tymes bene played by Ed. Allen and his Companie.
Kemps applauded Merrimentes.

（７）

With

Edward Allen and William Kempe, two of themost popular actors of the１５９０s, authorized the playtext. In the early modern theatre, both the playhouse and the printing house had their respective author functions.
In the playhouse it might be the name of the playing company, of a well-known actor, or sometimes a popular playwright. In the printing house it was almost always
the name of a printer, usually the owner of the house, and / or the publisher who financed the printing that appeared on the title page of a given publication.
During the first decade of the seventeenth century the author function on playbook
title pages more frequently included authors. When printed drama graduated fromthe cheap quarto edition to the expensive folio format, the name of a single playwright came to dominate the author function on the title page. The predominantauthor function of the playwright was even embodied by a portrait of the playwrighthimself. During the medieval period portraits of authors were placed on presentation
copies, but as engraved title pages became more common at the end of the sixteenth
century, portraits of authors came to be presented in the form of the title page,
monumentalizing the playtext as literary artifact.
The evolution of the authorial name in the publishing market began at the time
―４２―

when vernacular lyric poetry gradually came to be incorporated in the literary institution shaped by print culture. There were many prejudices to overcome before lyric
poetry had a secure place in the world of print.（８） Through most of the sixteenth
century, men of rank and others who pretended to gentility either deliberately
avoided print or tried to maintain the illusion that they had only reluctantly allowed
their work to be printed. The discourse of Mr John Selden, Esquire, better known as

Table-Talk , expressed the typical attitude. This was a collection of saying noted
down by Selden’s secretary, Richard Milward ; and thus the collection was not published by the author himself. However, it referred to the author’s disdain for publication.

Tis ridiculous for a Lorde to print Verses ; tis well enough to make them toplease himself, but to make them public, is foolish.

If a Man in a private

Chamber twirls his Band-strings, or plays with a Rush to please himself, tis
well enough ; but if he should go into Fleet-Street, and sit upon a Stall, andtwirl a Band-string, or play with a Rush, then all the Boys in the Street would
laugh at him.（９）To overcome the inhibition, or the stigma of print, （１０） lyric poets needed to be
granted a measure of literary and cultural authority. What writers, publishers, andprinters endeavoured was to promote a particular concept of authority. As the moststriking commercial strategy, the physical features of the text, its prefatory apparatus
and its title headings, provided the grounds on which the text was authorized. Title
pages from the various editions could testify how publishers and writers attempted tocreate the socio-cultural authority of the lyric poet. The title pages of the １５７３ and１５７５editions of George Gascoigne’s collected works demonstrated an interesting setof differences.（１１） The １５７３ edition, A Hundreth Sundrie Flowres, was presented asa miscellany of works by ancient and modern Continental writers and contemporary―４３―

English authors. The collection had a long introductory description of the contentson the title page ; however, Gascoigne’s name was absent from the title page of theputative literary florilegium. Although his name appeared in the titles of poems included in the table of contents, the book did not openly proclaim itself to be the collected works of George Gascoigne. Instead, the book pretended to be an anthologyof pleasant Pamphlets. （１２） Apart from the classical authors mentioned, only thename of the publisher, Richard Smith, appeared on the title page, which showed thatthe collection of manuscript-circulated literature written by various authors madeavailable to the public by the publisher alone.
Gascoigne was then a promisingly witty young courtier poet and hesitated to present his collected verses as a significant cultural achievement. His prefatory letter tothe collection wrote thus :Marie in deede I may not compare Pamphlets unto Po-

ems, neither yet may justly advent for our native countrimen, that they have in theirverses hitherto delivered unto us any such notable volume, as have bene by Poets of
antiquitie, left unto the posteritie. （１３） Denigrating the collection as trivial, immature,and occasional as pamphlets, Gascoigne seems to have protected himself from thestigma of print . The slightly revised edition of the anthology two years later had
a title-page advertising a very different kind of publication（Figure４）. An architectural frontispiece enshrined the work as a literary monument, enclosing the title accompanied by the author’s name and his gentlemanly status.（１４） The author’s namewas printed in a type size larger than the printer’s, which was printed in slightly
larger type than the publisher’s. Introducing Gascoigne as

EsquireandAuthorwas a device to pretend there were no conflict between genteel status and professional authorships.
The various editions of Daniel’s poems also could testify both an evolution of theauthorial name and a reconstitution of what the name signified.（１５） As successive
editions of Delia were published, the author’s name was gradually figured more
prominently. The title page to the １
５９２ edition simply placed the title within an ar―４４―

chitectural buttress made up of classical Corinthian columns accompanied by a motto（Figure ５）. The printer’s identification was placed at the bottom but the author’sname was printed nowhere. In the１５９４edition the page presented the enlarged archand eliminated the outer portion of the edifice（Figure６）. Thus more space was devoted to the linguistic description of the text enclosed within the columns. Most notably, Daniel’s name replaced the description of the text. The １
６２３ folio volume ofDaniel’s Workes included a frontispiece that presented his portrait embedded within
the classifying icons of a pictorial border（Figure ７）. As Wall observes, Daniel’s
portrait functioned as title to the work. The poems in the Workes seem to emanatefrom Daniel’s stare. The author in this format appears to be surveying the title pagethat announces his authority.
The early publication history of Drayton’s sonnet sequence Ideas Mirrour reveals
a similar textual and authorial evolution.（１６） The title page to the１
５９４ edition of thepoems presented the title without the author’s name（Figure８）. When the sequence
was republished in his collected Poems in １
６０８, the title page introduced in a large
font not only the author’s name but also his gentlemanly status（Figure ９）. The
authorization was underscored by its typographical presentation. The elaborately ornate frame served to monumentalize the text and celebrate its author. The １
６１９ edition offered a double title page : one presented an edifice comprised of the representative emblems of the genres found in the volume, the satyr, the shepherd, Calliope,and Belona ; and the other illustrated a woodcut picture of Drayton’s（Figure １
０）.
Here Drayton was portrayed in contemporary dress with a laurel adorning his head.
The attached motto and laudatory verse highlighted the monumentalizing effect of
this framing. The transformation of Daniel’s and Drayton’s title pages thus demonstrated the gradual constitution of the author as a more powerful literary figure who
commands the text.

―４５―

CHAPTER FOUR

Manuscript Culture

In the English Renaissance the composition of lyric poems was part of social life,
associated with a variety of practices in polite and educated circles. Verse was read
aloud to live audiences, passed from hand to hand in single sheets, small booklets,quires, or pamphlets, and found its way into manuscript commonplace books rather
than into printed volumes. Single poems as well as sets of poems were written as
occasional works. Their authors professed a literary amateurism and claimed to carelittle about the textual stability or historical durability of their productions. Poems
appeared not only on paper, but also on rings, on food trenchers, on tombstones andmonuments, and even on trees.（１） George Puttenham identified poems and epigrams
as social ephemera. Referring to a poem by Sir John Harington, Puttenham wrote
thus :

This Epigramme is but an inscription or writing made as it were upon a table,
or in a windowe, or upon the wall or mantel of a chimney in some place ofcommon resort, where it was allowed every man night come, or be sitting tochat and prate, as now in our taverns and common tabling houses, where many
merry leades meet, and scribble with ynke with chalke, or with a cole such matters as they would every man should know, & descant upon. Afterward thesame came to be put on paper and in bookes, and used as ordinarie missives,
some of friendship, some of defiaunce, or as other messages of mirth....
There be also other like Epigrammes that were sent usually for new yeares
giftes or to be Printed or put upon their banketing dishes of suger plate, or of―４６―

march paines, & such other dainty meates as by the curtesie & custome evry
gift might carry from a common feast home with him to his owne house, &were made for the nonce, they wer called Nemia or apophoreta, and never contained above one verse or two at the most, but the shorter the better, we callthem Posies, and do paint them now a dayes upon the backe sides of our fruite
trenchers of wood, or use them as devised in rings and armes and about suchcourtly purposes.（２）Puttenham alluded to the most casual and ephemeral of poetic productions ; however,his conception of verse as basically occasional was typical for the period.
The practice of assembling carefully planned manuscripts of lyric verse did nottake hold in the early Renaissance England.（３） Typically, lyrics were inserted inbooks given over to other sorts of texts. For example, in the collections assembled
by the fifteenth-century compiler, John Shirley, lyric poems were interspersed among
various other writings of interest to courtly readers.（４） In commonplace books individuals collected miscellaneous texts in verse and prose, which included practicalitems such as medical receipts, household accounts, copies of correspondence, andbusiness calculations.（５） Historically, these personal collections grew out of medieval
florilegia and the practice of keeping commonplace books taught in Renaissanceschools.（６）Manuscript miscellanies and poetical anthologies were kept mainly by individuals
or groups of people associated with the universities, the Inns of Court, the Court,
both the aristocratic and the middle class household or the family and their extendedsocial circles. Harold Love calls such groups scribal communities and regards thecirculation of manuscripts as a mode of social bonding. The

scribally transmitted

text had an important function of bonding groups of like-minded individuals into acommunity, sect, or political faction, with the exchange of texts in manuscript serving to nourish a shared set of values and to enrich personal allegiances. （７）―４７―Scribalcommunities had a profound effect on the types of texts produced within them. For
example, the group of writers associated with the Sidneys（Philip Sidney, his brother
Robert, and his sister Mary, the countess of Pembroke）−like Fulke Greville andSamuel Daniel−experimented with many of the same forms such as devotional andamatory lyric, and a Senecan closet drama. A significant percentage of the young
men at the Inns of Court competed with one another in the masterly of courtly manners and taste, regarding the Inns as a leaping-off point for careers at Court. The
display of writerly wit was part of their rivalry and thus their texts tended to be
written in order to demonstrate virtuosity for peers. University students who compiled miscellanies and anthologies thought of themselves as engaging in the leisureactivities of the educated gentleman, though, in fact, they came from different levelsof the social hierarchy. Many undergraduates continued to add to their collections
when they entered new environments. One of the most typical movements was fromthe university to the Inns of Court. Both University students and members of theInns of Court were especially fond of bawdy and obscene, usually either socially
iconoclastic or snobbish verse which constituted a large portion of the total.
In the system of manuscript transmission it was normal for lyrics to elicit revisions, corrections, supplements, and answers（８）as they were passed from hand tohand. Renaissance texts were inherently malleable, escaping authorial control andopen to readers’ appropriation. Even an authorial holograph was not immune to alteration. Thomas Wyatt’s collection of his own verse, for example, contained the alterations introduced by Nicholas Grimald and other sixteenth-century correctors, together with poet’s own revisions of his work.（９） Sometimes in the course of theirmanuscript transmission different poems were conflated in whole or in part to create
new poetic units（１０）as seen in John Lilliat’s anthology where a poem attributed to Sir
Henry Lee on his retirement is actually a conflation of three stanzas of a poem from
George Peele’s Polyhymnim in １５９０（. １１） Transcribing from memory was a widespread practice in the era and also resulted in unconscious alterations in the produc―４８―

tion of variant texts of poems.（１２）The inclusion of verse composed by those who owned or transcribed texts in collections was one of the most important features of the system of manuscript transmission.（１３） Often the flyleaf or cover page of a manuscript was used to preface thecollection with a poem or poems composed by the owner or compiler. Blank pages
or blank spaces at the bottom of pages also invited compilers as well as others
whose hands manuscripts were passed over to insert their own poems. The university students and the members of the Inns of Court who collected verse exercised
skills in translation and composition they had been taught or took the opportunity toimitate the work of the contemporary poets.（１４） For example, John Finett collectedverse both at St. Johns College, Cambridge, and at the Elizabethan court in the late
１５８０s and early１
５９０s. He later found a place in the early Stuart court as chief secretary to Robert Cecil and as master of ceremonies for both James I and Charles I.
Finett’s Elizabethan manuscript anthology was, according to Laurence Cummings, the best such miscellaneous collection in England between Tottel’s in １５５７
and England’s Helicon in １６００ or Poetical Rhapsody in １６０３. （１５） The anthology
contained occasional writing by fellow students together with the work of suchcourtly writers as Oxford, Raleigh, Breton, Sidney, Dyer, Gorges, Spenser, and even
Queen Elizabeth.（１６） Finett valued the poems of Sidney,（１７） and twenty-three pieces
were compiled from Sidney’s works such as Arcadia, Certain Sonnets, and Astro-phil and Stella （. １８） Furthermore, Finett merged excerpts from Sidney poems to create a new poem.（１９） For instance, Sidney’s My earthly mould doth melt in watry
teareswas conflated in Finett’s Thus do I fall to ryse thus. （２０）Some compilers were insistent about initiating the most up-to-date poetic models. This was the case of John Ramsey.（２１） In his commonplace book collection（２２） a
miscellany of verse and phrase compiled from about １
５９６ to １６３３, after the transcription of Spenser’s Mother Hubbards Tale Ramsey inserted his own paraphraseof Spenser’s sixty-fourth sonnet of Amoretti . Ramsey’s imitative sonnet was then
―４９―

followed by two more poems in which he adopted a Spenserian pastoral persona. Hundreds of poems from the manuscripts of the period were a unique recordof readers’ and collectors’ full participation in a system of amateur versifying andmanuscript transmission.
Poetry, regarded as the product of an aristocratic social ethos, sustained and policed the social boundaries that defined equals or near-equals in social status. （２３）Gentlemen and aspirants to gentility wrote English poetic works as part of social
commerce in the domain of the private coterie. Saunders describes the coterie circle
as a finishing school where members polished each other’s art, which, like the tastes
for clothes, or the ear for compliment, or the aptitude for dancing or fencing or riding, was very much a matter of doing the right things in the right way, in a gamewhere every man tired to dazzle and outwit his competitors.（２４） The genteel system
of manuscript exchange was sustained by the prestige attached to poetic amateurism. One of John Harington’s epigrams voiced a typical aristocratic disdain for publication.（２５）A Comfort for Poore Poets also revealed his anxiety that the amateur

gentleman lost his place to the profiting author.（２６）―５０―CHAPTER FIVE

Print Culture

In the late sixteenth and early seventeenth century, a writer, both amateur and professional, could participate in either a coterie manuscript culture or a newly burgeoning print industry. Renaissance manuscripts derived authority from their place in coterie circles−at court and in the satellite environments of the universities and theInns of Court. Printed texts, on the other hand, were authorized by an appeal totheir intrinsic textual features rather than their status as occasional verse.
In the process of incorporating lyric poetry into print culture there were importantmoments in English publication history before the appearance of the １６２３ Folio
Shakespeare : Tottel’s Miscellany in １５５７; the １
５９１ and １５９２ publication of Sidney’s Astrophil and Stella ; Ponsonby’s１５９８folio of Sidney’s collected works ; andBen Jonson’s １
６１６ Workes . Tottel’s collection set the precedent for the publicationof miscellaneous social verse in other poetry anthologies as well as in single-author
editions. Tottel diverted poetry from the restricted social circulation of manuscripttransmission to a larger public through print. The verse of Wyatt, Surrey, Grimald,and other early Tudor poets, which had been confined previously to manuscript circulation, made its debut in the print medium in Tottel’s volume.
Tottel’s address to the reader of his anthology（１）asserted the public’s right to thelegitimate profit and pleasure derivable from texts that had been socially restrictedby the ungentle horders up of such treasure : In labeling the horders of such texts
as ungentle , Tottel reversed the class distinctions generated by coterie circulation,
inscribing the act of publishing as the more noble, gentle mode of exchange. The
nobility advertised ostentatious expenditure, lavish liberality, and conspicuous con―５１―

sumption in order to set themselves apart from the growing merchant class. In the
preface to the miscellany Tottel equated the aristocratic value−liberality−with thefree circulation of private texts as treasure.

This restructuring of the typical coding−common print and noble manuscript−disclaimed the reputed evill of publishingand validated the medium by which English poetry was to be proven.
Moreover, since the demonstration and learning of English eloquence werepart of a program of nationalistic self-assertion, Tottel claimed that printing the workof such courtly writers as Wyatt and Surrey was a patriotic act. He characterized
print as fostering a civilizing process that would reach down to the lowest strata ofsociety. The aim of his publication was, therefore, to encourage the unlearned toreadto learne to be more skilfull, and to purge that swinelike grosseness, thatmaketh the swete majerome not to smell to their delight. （２） Prominent featuring of
the aristocrat Surrey in the frontispiece portrait and on the title page（Figure １１）illustrated the aristocratic social origins of the anthology and dignified the print medium. The association with a figure whose life held some special interest to potential readers because of his social and political pre-eminence endorsed printed works.
The rhetorical move that Tottel employed to safeguard the publishing served othercompilers and writers. For example, the prefatorial material to Barnage Googe’s
１５６３poetic collection, Eclogues, Epitaphs, and Sonnets, told the reader to encourage others to make thee partaken of the like or far greater jewels, who yet doubting
thy unthankful receipt niggardly keep them to their own use and private commodity,
Whereas being assured of the contrary by the friendly report of other men’s travails,
they could perhaps be easily entreated more freely to lend them abroad to thy greater
avail and furtherance. （３） George Pettie took the similar strategy to dignify publication in the introduction to his １
５８１ translation of a courtesy handbook : （Gentlemen）never deny your selves to be Schollers, never be ashamed to shewe your learning, confesse it, professe it, inbrace it, honor it : for it is it which honoureth you, it is
only it which maketh you men, it is onely it whiche maketh you Gentlemen. （４） In―５２―

Pettie’s justification publication established a claim to both social status and manhood. Printed works had been conceived of or treated as ephemeral. Especiallywhen published in short octavos and quartos, poetry anthologies and small editionsof individual authors had small chance of surviving. This showed exactly how they
were treated by contemporary readers. Entertaining pamphlets produced for young
fashionable gentlemen were apt to be treated as worthless, disposable objects.
The publication of Sidney’s Astrophil and Stella in the early １
５９０s was a landmark event to provide the necessary socio-cultural legitimation for printing of lyric
verse. Thomas Newman’s two １５９１ quartos, despite the poor and incomplete stateof their texts, were enormously important publications which elevated the status of
lyric poetry and of literary authorship.（５） The publication fundamentally changed thecultural attitudes toward the printing of the secular lyrics of individual writers, lessening the social disapproval of such texts as literary ephemera and helping to incorporate them into the durable canonical body of texts. Sidney’s publication madeboth poetry pamphlets and collected literary works more socially acceptable and thus
paved the way for such poets as Daniel, Drayton, and Jonson to publish their poems. Especially the １
５９８ folio of collected works had a remarkable impact on the
publication.
The most striking feature was that the１５９８ folio edition introduced page numeration. The edition arranged the sonnet sequences within a structured format and thus
intensified the order when one reads the book. Sonnet sequences in miscellanies
such as Tottels’ collected poems according to their social situation and utility : forexample, a sonnet upon the mistress’s eyes,

a young lover to use in wooing, andetc. In such editions the sequences called attention to its use for the reader. Coterie
readers in the manuscript culture had taken liberties in imposing a particular order of
their own choosing on the poems. Coterie sonnets were produced through dialogue
and conversation and thus characterized by textual diversity and openness. Coteriecircles encouraged a conversation − verse from the Latin vertere, meaning to―５３―

turn −a turning back and forth of scripted messages between writers.（６） As Marottinotes, within the system of communal authorship （７）the reader exercised extensive
control over the text. In a system of manuscript circulation of literature, as Marottisummarizes, those into whose hands texts came could, in a real sense, own them :they could collect, alter, and transit them. （８） To impose a chronological order on
the collection by separating the individual poems with page numbers created aclosed and complete poetic unit, finished without the readers’ collaborative aid.
After the printing of Sidney’s works in the １
５９０s both publishers and writers alluded to the authorizing example of Sidney. Sidney became the Paragon of Excellency in Print, as a contemporary writer, Gabriel Harvey, put it.（９） Samuel Daniel
called Sidney’s poems holy Reliques, （１０） suggesting that his texts as well as Sidney’s had a sacred status and deserved special treatment. Michael Drayton in his

Ideas Mirrour invoiced the example of Sidney to assert his own litery originality :Divine Syr Phillip, I avouch thy writ, I am no Pickpurse of anothers wit．（１１）The １５９８ folio of Sidney’s collected works became a model for the incorporationof the writer’s lyric poems in a comprehensive, monumentalizing edition that celebrated both his literary achievement and authorial status. Collected editions in theprestigious folio format helped establish the authority of printed literature.

Folio

editions of such authors as Daniel（１６０１）, Spenser（１６１１, １６１７）, Jonson（１６１６）,
Drayton（１６１９）, and Shakespeare（１６２３）were made possible by the landmark publication of Sidney’s.

―５４―CHAPTER SIX

Into the Library

When he selected books for the new public library he founded at Oxford in １
６０３,
Sir Thomas Bodley instructed his head librarian, Thomas James, to excludenacs, plays, and proclamation

alma-

（１）

from his collection of printed books in the library,claiming that they were not worth the custody in suche a librarie. （２） Perhaps one
English play in forty may be worthy the keeping , but Bodley maintained that itwas not worth the risk :Were it so againe, that some little profit might be reaped（which God knows isvery litle）out of some of our playbooks, the benefit therof will nothing neere
contervaile, the harme that the scandal will bring unto the librarie, when it
shalbe given out, that we stuffe it full of baggage bookes.（３）Baggage meant moveable or portable property. Thus baggage books were literally portable because they were published in small formats such as quarto or octavothat allowed for ease of circulation. From the sixteenth century to the eighteenth,baggage was also a term of abuse, meaning trashy or valueless. （４） Continental drama was compiled, by men of great fame, for wisedome & learning, but English drama had no place at the Bodleian because Bodley claimed that the more I
thinke vpon it, the more it doth distast me, that suche kinde of bookes, should bevouchsafed a rowme, in so noble a Librarie. （５）Three years after the library opened, the Bodleian recorded in its first catalogue acollection of more than five thousand titles, only three of which were classified as―５５―English literature and no titles referred to vernacular drama.（６） A １６１０ agreementwith the Stationers’ Company entitled the library to one perfect Booke of every
work newly printed by members of the Company. The１
６２０catalogue of the Bodleian, however, had no single record of the plays by Beaumont and Fletcher, Jonson,
Marlowe, and Shakespeare that the library should have obtained through this agreement.（７） The catalogue included John Webster’s elegy for Prince Henry, but not hisplay The White Devil（１６１２）, even though the two quartos were printed within ayear of each other.
Yet Bodley’s disdain for playbooks did not represent contemporary attitudes toward book acquisition. The library, for the most part, sorted through the donationsof aristocrats whom Bodley had courted, and bought books from a select group of
Oxford and London booksellers. Among the earliest donors to the library were Lord
Essex, Lord Hunsdon, and Sir Robert Sidney.（８） The fact that Bodley found cause
for alarm in their collections testifies that many of his respectable contemporaries favoured playbooks. Sir John Harington, who made collections of verse that covered
the entire range of Tudor poetry from Wyatt to the１
５９０s, catalogued １３０ playbooks
in his collection, including １
５ titles by Shakespeare and most of Jonson’s works.（９）Edward２nd Viscount Conway owned３５０English playbooks.（１０） The library of Robert
Burton contained a great many masques, comedies, and tragedies.（１１） The Bridgewater House library, one of the largest seventeenth-century family collections, obtained
plays by Chapman, Dekker, Ford, Marlowe, Middleton, Shakespeare, and Webster.（１２）The list of books owned by Scipio le Squyer, who was Deputy Chamberlain of the
Exchequer from １
６２０ to １
６５９, included Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet, Fletcher’s

Faithful Shephedess, Middleton’s A Game at Chess, Jonson’s Volpone, and Kyd’s
Spanish Tragedy （. １２） Sir Edward Dering, first baronet of Surrenden in Kent（１５９８１６４４）, recorded the purchase of no fewer than ２２５ playbooks between １６１９ and１６２４（. １４）The extant evidence shows that playbooks started collected, bound, and catalogued―５６―from the beginning of the seventeenth century. The Bodleian itself greatly increased
its store of English drama taken from Robert Burton’s collections by the terms of his
will. Among the books the library acquired from Burton were ten plays and entertainments by Heywood, nine by Beaumont and Fletcher, eight by Shirley, six by
Chapman, six by Middleton, four by Jonson, and three by Webster. John Rous, theBodleian’s second librarian, recorded English drama in separate categories from theLatin ones and catalogued drama in a field of its own. Further, only the Latin titles
were copied from Rous’ list and entered into the Benefactors’ Register. Absent fromthis register, the bulk of the bequest went unrecognized.（１５） As Rous’ failure to register each of Burton’s playbooks obscured the presence of drama in the Bodleian, theearly modern libraries contained far more playbooks than they reveal.（１６）The Stationers’ Company registered about １
５０ titles a year in the late sixteenth
and early seventeenth centuries. Some of these were never printed, while others appeared that had escaped registration. W.W. Greg estimated an average of ２００ titles
a year came off the press in the year between １５７６ and １６４０（. １７） Then he assumed
that １,５００ copies of an edition, which was the maximum number that the Stationers’
Company had limited until １６３５（save for special permission for larger editions ofsome school-books, Bibles, catechisms, etc.）, made a maximum of ３００,０００ volumes
each year. This is rather a high estimate for this early period when print runs were
often smaller. As Blayney estimates, the stationer who published a book would recover his original investment plus storage cost if he was lucky enough to sell ８００
copies in ten years.（１８） The printing history shows that less than half of the newly
published playbooks reprinted within twenty years after their first run.（１９） That is,more than half of the printed copies remained unsold each year, contrary to Greg’s
high estimate. Yet, if half of the output of the London press was purchased eachyear, where did they go? Probate inventories in many parts of the country recorded
the possession of books among the goods and chattels of the deceased, affording a
glimpse of the penetration of literature into the provinces.
―５７―

From １５２１ on a probate inventory upon decease was required by law ; and fromthe１５２０s through the１
５９０s these inventories seem to have been conducted ordinarily with care and precision. After the１
５９０s, however, book lists in probate inventories became more cursory and far less detailed.（２０） Moreover, the record was sociallyselective and did not provide exact data of book ownership. Ecclesiastical law andcustom referred the inventories of some men of substance to higher jurisdictions, sothey might not appear in archidiaconal or diocesan collections. Men of little substance rarely appeared at all since they had little in the way of moveable property to
distribute and the church was not interested in their estates, and women were severely under-represented.（２１）
Much worse than their social bias was the casual way in which books were treatedin inventories. First of all, no standard procedure seemed to have been taken : The
titles of some books were given, but often the appraisers merely entered his books,
or books and other lumber, or left them out altogether. Well-bound volumes andreligious works had a greater chance of being listed than popular romances andephemera. Yet it is common to find the inventories of professional men and others
who were known to have possessed books not mentioning a single volume.

Somany volumes went unrecorded in private inventories. Poorer people, who presumably owned few books, were under-represented, while the books of those for whom
inventories were made were under-registered. As in the case of the Bodoleian’s unregistered drama collections, playbooks in private libraries, too, remained hiddenfrom view. What was worse, books were often thrown together with other household
stuffes, or goods in the study （２２）because of their low value.
The binding of a book figured significantly in its appraisal value. A quantity ofcurrent vernacular literature such as drama deemed unworthy of binding ; and, indeed, many playbooks were never bound. If book owners bothered little to havethem bound, these books would have fallen apart easily, or they may have been discarded as mere ephemera.（２３） When published in short octavos and quartos, poetry―５８―anthologies and small editions of individual authors had small chance of surviving.
Likewise, cheap playbooks faced the same danger of being literally read out of existence.（２４）
According to Blayney’s sample estimation, six pence a copy would have been atypical price for individual playbook, excluding folio versions of complete works.（２５）However, it was by no means invariable because the retail price was varied to eachwholesale price which would be determined by the balance of the publisher’s costs
and expected profits. For example, Blayney suggests the retail prices of the four
quartos as follows :A Yorkshire Tragedy（four sheet）;３.４２d.
A Midsummer Night’s Dream（eight sheets）;５.５３d.
Richard III（twelve sheets）;７.５７d.
Every Man Out of his Humour（seventeen sheets）;１０.１６d.（２６）The only recorded prices paid for Shakespeare plays before １６２３ are ５d. for the
１６００ quarto of ２nd Henry IV （２７）and ８d. for the １５
９５ octavo of The True Tragedy

of Richard Duke of York（３rd Henry VI ）（. ２８） Prices for many playbooks, however,ranged from two pence to eight pence ; and two pence was the usual minimum pricefor any printed work other than a broadside. Playbooks, in fact, were among thecheapest books available and thus deemed worthless.

―５９―CHAPTER SEVEN

Inventing Authority

The１６１６ publication of Ben Jonson’s Workes in folio inaugurated the era of theprinted drama collection. Jonson obviously benefited from the precedent of the publication of Sidney’s collected works in folio.

The generic idea of publishing a

Shakespeare’s folio collection most likely emerged from the same period.

Jonson’s folio included a frontispiece portrait of the poet himself（Figure １
２）,
which was a common means in print culture for elevating the socio-cultural status ofauthorship.（１） Jonson advertised his ownership of a body of work and his status as awriter laying claim to cultural authority. The１
６１６folio was, as Joseph Loewensteincalls, a major event in the history of what one might call the bibliographic ego. （２）The architectural design shows four columns standing on a plinth. On a panel inthe central aperture is the title with the motto in Latin. Before the left arch is a female figure representing the muse of Tragoedia. On the right stands the muse of
Comoedia. In the upper central niche is the figure of Tragi Comoedia. Astride thearch of the main pediment, left, is a Satyr. Opposite is a shepherd Pastor. In the
cartouche within the pediment is a Roman theatre, Theatavm. On the face of theplinth, left, is a wagon, Plavstram, drawn by a horse. Right is an amphitheatre, visorivm, sunk below ground level, with the Chorus dancing round the altar in thecentre. Jonson regarded himself as the rival to the Latin poets in his knowledge of
Greek and Latin drama ; and, indeed, he conceived his plays in the spirit of the classical writers. The figures within the Greek architecture, the ancient theatres, and thesentences from Horace−all proclaimed Jonson’s allegiance to the reverend models―６０―and precepts of the classical drama and classical poetry by which his works, toolearned for the vulgar, have deserved eternal fame. （３）More significantly, Jonson strengthened his proprietary rights as author, holding
the initiative in the printing process of revising, annotating, and correcting print
runs. He assumed control over his writings, and a print culture made it possible
what was virtually impossible in a system of manuscript transmission, where theuses and interpretation of texts were more obviously under reader control. To stabilize the text and thus to canonize the work− an act of textual selfmonumentalization, in Montrose’s phrase（４）−playbooks needed to be growne from
Quarto into Folio in farre better paper than most Octavo or Quarto Bibles, （５） as thecontemporary satirist, William Prynne, described with contempt.
Publishers and such playwrights as Jonson in the first decade of the seventeenth
century considered educated readers among the potential buyers of their books. The
typography of playbooks suggests that publishers and playwrights hoped to generatea market for printed drama consisting of well-educated readers. During the closing
decades of the sixteenth century roman type displaced blackletter as the usual designfor books of many kinds ; and by １
６００ most works still usually printed in blackletter tended toward one of two extremes. Serious and conservative works such as
lawbooks, chronicles, and lectern-size Bibles were still printed in blackletter. Official documents such as proclamations and statutes, and the hornbook from whichchildren first learned their alphabet were also customarily printed in blackletter. On
the other hand, roman type（or italic）was preferred for Latin, and the basic Latin
school text was printed in roman. This fact led the book trade to associate romantype with a higher level of literacy and education than blackletter. Therefore, works
aimed at the barely literate−at those who had learned their hornbook but had not
graduated to Latin−were usually printed in blackletter : jestbooks, works for the instruction and improvement of the young people, sensational news pamphlets, andballads.（６） Between １５８３ and １５９２ nine out of twenty plays were printed in black―６１―

letter, but in １
５９３-１６０２ the proportion dropped to ten out of seventy-six. One play
was printed in blackletter in １６０３, another in １６０４, and the last three in １
６０５−all
printed by William Jaggard for Thomas Pavier. The preference for roman type suggests that the publishers no longer regarded the playbook as belonging to the same
market as jestbooks and ballads.
Another typographic feature of the new printing strategy for the playbook was theuse of what Greg identified as continuous printing （７）−a method of setting type inwhich verse lines broken between two speakers are set on one line to create a complete metrical unit. The practice of continuous printing began in the universities
with translations from classical dram. Of the first twenty plays printed continuously,
dating from １５３０ to １
６０４, all but four are either university drama, literary translations, or closet drama.（８） As drama became more acceptably literary matter, thenumber of continuously printed plays increased. The publication history of The

Knight of the Burning Pestle, staged in １６０７ and printed six years later, clearly
showed that the publisher, Walter Burre, adopted this method of printing to generatea market for well-educated readers. The playbook had been unpopular with theatre
audiences, but the publisher took a calculated risk in publishing because he believed
that, as Zachary Lesser argues, he could exploit a new and important cultural division in the theatrical market.（９） Lesser asserts that continuous printing values the literary and poetic in the playwright’s lines−their meter and form−over the theatricalnecessity of clearly identifying the speaker of those lines, turning a stage play into a
printed poem. （１０） Analyzing more than seventy dramatic texts that appear to havebeen marketed to an upscale readership, Lesser summarizes their common features asfollows :...these plays are twice as likely as the average printed play to contain Latin on
their title pages, with those published after １５８０ having an even higher likelihood. Over a third of them contain some indication of the author’s social status―６２―

on the title page, from university student, fellow, or Master of Arts, toGent.

And Servant to her Majesty, and including one countess（Pembroke ; again,
this is twice the percentage of overall plays. Fewer than a quarter of theseplays were performed at outdoor theatres, far below the general rate, and they
are over-represented for closet drama, or drama intended purely for the study
rather than the stage.（１１）The １６１２ quarto edition of The White Devil, printed by Nicholas Okes for Thomas Archer, included all of those literary features that Lesser observes. Like The

Knight of the Burning Pestle, The White Devil had a poor showing at the box office when it was first performed at the Red Bull in February, １６１２. The printed textof The White Devil explicitly appealed to an educated readership with Latin epigram and continuous printing. In the prefatory note To the Reader, the author attempted to legitimize the printed text by discounting the poor reception in the theatre
as the consequence of an inadequate performance venue and inept audience :In publishing this tragedy, I do but challenge to myself that liberty, which othermen have ta’en before me ; not that I affect praise by it, for, nos haec novimus esse
nihil ; ... only since it was acted in so dull a time of winter, presented in so open andblack a theatre, that it wanted（that which is the only grace and setting out of a tragedy）a full and understanding auditory ; and that since that time I have noted, mostof the people that come to that playhouse resemble those ignorant asses（who visiting stationers’ shops their use is not to inquire for good books, but new books）. I
present it to the general view with this confidence :Nec rhoncos metues, maligniorum,
Nec scombris tunicas, dabis molestas.（１２）Webster provided several explanations for the failure ; yet the audience was to be―６３―

blamed most :If it be objected this is no true dramatic poem, I shall easily confess it−nonpotes in mugas dicere plura meas : ipse ego quam dixi−willingly, and not ignorantly, in this kind have I faulted. For should a man present to such an auditory
the most sententious tragedy that ever was written, observing all the critical laws,ass height of style and gravity of person, enrich it with the sententious chorus, andas it were lifen death, in the passionate and weighty Nuntius ; yet after all this divine rapture, O dura messorum ilia, the breath that comes from the uncapable maltitude is able to poison it.（１３）

Webster believed that The White Devil had serious literary merit and was far beyond the uncapable multitude. His work was born out of such worthy labours as :that full and heightened style of Master Chapman ; the labour’d and underswtanding works of Master Jonson ; the no less worthy composures of theboth worthily excellent Master Beaumont and Master Fletcher ; and ... the righthappy and copious industry of Master Shakespeare, Master Dekker, and Master
Heywood.（１４）George Chapman’s literary reputation had been already secure by the time The

White Devil was printed, and it was not a reputation wholly earned on the London
stage. It was the several editions of Homer published since １
５６１ that earned him aprivileged position as a great Author in England’s early modern period. （１５）Ben Jonson, despite his exclusive focus on writing for the public and private
stage, bolstered the literary reputation of printed drama in the period prior to the
publication of Webster’s play. Jonson believed that publication process could deliver some success to a play that had failed on the stage. In the preface To the―６４―Readers of the １
６０
５ quarto of Sejanus His Fall Jonson justified his play’s failure
and announced his literary ambitions by explaining the method of quoting classicalsources. On the dedication in the first quarto edition of his Catiline Conspiracy（１６１１）Jonson criticized popular audience, complaining of the so thicke, and darke,
an ignorance, as now almost couers the Age. （１６） A year later, in the address to thereader of The Alchemist（１６１２）, Jonson attacked playwrights who are esteem’d themore learned, and sufficient for this, by the Multitude, and blamed this fate on the
disease of the unskilfull, to thinke rude things greater then polish’d ; or scatter’dmore numerous than compos’d. （１７）Jonson took great advantage of typographical features to mark his plays as literary. Of the five plays published between１
６０５and１６１２− Sejanus, His Fall（１６０５）,

Volpone（１６０７）, The Case is Altered（１６０９）, Catiline, his Conspiracy（１６１１）, and
The Alchemist（１６１２）−four of them featured Latin epigraphs on their title pages,
and all of them adopted continuous printing. The fact that of all playwrights Jonson
used the technique of continuous printing most consistently and prominently, as
Lesser observes, reveals that Jonson was so eager to mark the difference between thestage play and legitimate Poeme that his literary ambitions aimed at.（１８）As was the case with Jonson and the quarto text of Sejanus, John Fletcher in anote To the Reader of The Faithful Shepheardesse strived to legitimize the playaddressing the potential purchaser of the book.

To prevent misunderstanding,Fletcher explained the readers that the play

Is a pastorall Tragi-comedie, which the people seeing when it was plaid, having
ever had a singular guift in defining, concluded to be a play of country hired
Shepheards, in gray cloakes, with curtaild dogs in strings, sometimes laughing
together, and sometimes killing one another : And missing whitsun ales,
creame, wassel & morris-dances, began to be angry.（１９）―６５―Fletcher anticipated some of the ways that the play was likely to be misunderstoodand hoped to justify his Poeme and to teach you［the reader］more for nothing. （２０） Like Jonson and Webster, Fletcher had clear distinction between theatre
audiences and readers. In dedicatory poems that Beaumont and Fletcher contributed
to the １６１２ quarto edition of Jonson’s The Alchemist, Beaumont worried that thewit of Jonson’s play would be lost on the common people ... till thy Readers cangrow vp to it, （２１） and Fletcher blamed the play’s unpopularity in the theatre on playgoers who preferred vulgar forms of comedy such as mad Pasquill, / or Greene’s
deare Groatsworth, or Tom Coryate. （２２）Webster, Jonson, and Beaumont and Fletcher−all had been writing plays for thecommercial theatre ; and yet those commercial playwrights aspiring to literary statusadvertised the literary qualities of their plays and demonstrated their expectation ofan elite readership. The learned, or understanding readers were presumed to havea well-developed sense of critical judgment and a familiarity with the conventions ofclassical drama, of which the vulgar audience of the public playhouses was utterly
devoid. The inscription of such plays within a literary rather than a theatrical culture
is, Straznicky comments, also signaled by the absence of the label play in theirtitles（instead they identify the genre or use non-theatrical terms like dramatic poem,
dialogue, history, work, or treatise）, and by other textual cue such as dedicatory, orcommendatory epistle, marginal annotations （２３）or, emblematic title page and Latin
mottoes which were addressed to the same learned elite readers who enjoyed thebooks of emblems.
In late sixteenth and early seventeenth century England, to be a man in print （２４）
was the trend among Shakespeare’s contemporaries. However, Shakespeare seems
to have been singularly indifferent about the publication of his plays, which hastroubled critics from Samuel Johnson to the present. Brooks observes that the apparent selflessness with regard to the ownership of his texts is, perhaps, more easily
comprehended when viewed in the context of Shakespeare’s unparalleled profes―６６―

sional involvement with the same company. （２５） As Bentley notes, from the formation of the Lord Chamberlain’s company in １
５９４ to Shakespeare’s death in １
６１６
there is no evidence that he ever wrote any play for any other company−a longer
period of fidelity than that known for any other dramatist, and one which was neverinterrupted. （２６） Shakespeare was, in Brooks terms, a consummate company man ;and Richard Dutton observes that plays written by company playwrights were theonly ones to which the companies held a copyright respected by the Stationers’
Company and licensers for the press. （２７） Shakespeare’s status as a sharer and an ordinary poet for the King’s Men prevented him from exploring authorial selfpromotion in the fashion of so many of his contemporaries.
As we have observed, Shakespeare’s company had a coherent strategy to try to gettheir playwright’s plays into print in the late sixteenth century. However, the number of publications of Shakespeare’s playbook declined after １６００. The company
had regular dealings with a small group of stationers from １
５９５ to １６０３, when
Shakespeare acquired a remarkable reputation in print. Yet these dealings were significantly reduced after the company had secured royal patronage. The company’s
strategy against the publication of their plays outside their control was endorsed by
the １６１９ intervention of the Lord Chamberlain ; and, in effect, they were granted asole copyright authority three years after the death of the company’s playwright.
After all, it was Shakespeare’s fellow actors who translated the popular playwrightof the commercial theatre into the authorial figure of the literary work.
The １
６２３ Folio included a title page with an engraved portrait of Shakespeare, acommon means in print culture for elevating the socio-cultural status of authorship.
The title page（Figure １３）indicated that the book was the authenticated edition of
the collected plays according to the true originall copies . An Epistle Dedicatorie （２８）on the next page appealed to the patronage of the Earls of Pembroke andMontgomery, which proclaimed that the volume was, in principle, dedicated privately as in the manuscript elite culture to the writer’s noble patrons. The address―６７―

To the Great Variety of Readers explained the authenticity of the collection, exhorted readers to read the book again, and again, and to lead others to full understanding of the masterpiece. The volume also contained four commemorative poems by other writers including Ben Jonson. The １６２３ Folio preliminaries were thusorganized to publicize both Shakespeare’s authorship and the volume’s quasi-coterie
attribution originated in the system of courtly reward and preferment. In composing
the collection, the editors and the publishers sought to publish on the prestige attached to privately circulated manuscripts among the elite readers at court, the two
universities, and Inns of Court.
Another remarkable feature of the Folio was that the title page was devoid of theperformance history that had been always involved in the previous quarto publications as a means of commercial strategy in the publishing market. From very earlyon, certain kinds of dramatic publications that had not been written for and performed on the public stage acknowledged the writer’s identity and were publishedwith dedications. Among these were : academic Latin dramas, translations of Seneca’s plays, continental plays, and closet dramas written by the Sidney circle. The
inscription of such plays within a literary culture was also signaled by the absence ofthe label play in their titles ; and, instead, they identified the genre, or used nontheatrical terms such as dramatic poem,
tise.

dialogue,history,

work, or trea-

The attribution of dedicatory or commendatory epistle and marginal annota-

tions were also the textual cues.（２９） All of these dramatic texts were associated neither with the public performances on the commercial stage nor with the stigma ofprint. Heltzel surveys that during the entire reign of Queen Elizabeth and for someyears after, the ordinary stage play was not thought worthy of patronal favor andnone was dedicated. （３０）George Chapman was the first dramatist to dedicate a play that had been performed in front of a paying audience.（３１） The playwright furnished his Charles, Dukeof Byron（１６０８）with a dedication to Sir Thomas Walsingham and his son. Ben―６８―

Jonson provided presentation copies of his plays with dedications. Some copies ofCynthia’s Revels（１６０１）inserted dedications to Jonson’s old schoolmaster, William
Camden, and to the Countess of Bedford ; and two copies of Sejanus（１６０５）withinscriptions to Francis Crane and to Sir Robert Townshead. The１
６２３Folio of Mr.
William Shakespeares Comedies, Histories, & Tragedies with an Epistle Dedicatorie and commendatory verses demonstrated the literary qualities that deserved in the
folio publication rather than in cheap quartos. On the other hand, the１
６２２ quarto of

Othello published by Walkley had little ambition to aim at literary respectability ofthe playtext, though it addressed to the Reader in an attempt to show the publisher’s
reader-conscious attitude. Yet the performance history written on the title page advocated that the quarto text was firmly based on the commercial stage, advertisingthat it hath been diverse times acted at the Globe, and at the Black-Friars, by his
Majesties Seruant. （３２）After all, the quarto publisher sought to gain financial achievements, rather thanliterary ones, though he advertised the literary quality of the work itself by authorizing the playtext in the assumed coterie production of the manuscript.

―６９―CHAPTER EIGHT

Texts of Othello

The １６２２ quarto and the １
６２３ folio present the same play in the same order of
events with the same order of speeches for the most part ; and yet the texts differ
from one another on various points, as Othello editors of different generation haveanalyzed so far. First of all, the first quarto（Q１）lacks about １
６０ lines which thefirst folio（F）has. McMillin offers the distribution of Q１omissions by act :Act１. ３instances,２９lines.
Act２. ２instances,５lines.
Act３. ３instances,１７lines.
Act４. ８instances,７６lines.
Act５. ５instances,２７lines.（１）The act references here are the conventional ones from F. Act ４ has the largest
number of omitted lines, nearly ５０% of the total. Moreover, Act ４ omissions centre
on Desdemona and Emilia, including Desdemona’s Willow Song and Emilia’s
speech on marital fidelity. ４
５ of the omitted lines are from Desdemona’s part, ３６from Emilia’s.
Other differences are found in the division of the verse lines and punctuation. Q１
and F often divide verse lines differently.（２） F is consistently heavy in punctuation,
whereas Q１ sometimes intersperses lightly pointed passages or speeches and a number of dashes.（３） F is more positive in imposing stops, while Q１ sometimes omits
punctuation to leave open a choice of readings. In the Q１ text commas, semi-colons―７０―and colons are used for nearly all pauses and stops before the speech-endings.（４） The
key to the system operating in the Q１ punctuation is, McMillin analyses, the withheld period−the period reserved for end of the speech. F does not use the withheld
period and is thus free to place periods at the heavier stops within speeches.
Q１ have many instances that the actors’ voices had made their way into the text :for example, in extra-metrical tags such as Roderigo’s dying O, O, O（V. i. ６８）
and Othello’s climactic O Desdemona, Desdemona, dead, O, O, O（V. ii. ２９２）.（５）The actors’ interpolations are among the substantive variations between the
texts. McMillin cites as a good example the very first word on the stage. The stageof the Q１ opens with Roderigo’s expletive Tush, which, McMillin observes, anactor can turn into a pathetic whine or an angry outburst−it is a stagey reaction towhaever Iago has been saying as the two enter. （６） Iago’s response begins with
Sblood, and McMillin notes that

Tush and SBlood are actors’ interpolations,bits of impromptu fuel for intensifying the opening exchange and quieting the spectators, the sort of gambit that actors call upon to establish a presence. （７）The possibility of mishearing also accounts for Q１ textual variation.

Mines ofsulphure in F and mindes of sulphure in Q１was a good example to mark the possibility that a scribe made these errors hearing the voices of actors. It may be thatthe scribe listened to the actors’ rendition of the entire Q１ text and heard nearly allof it correctly but misheard some words, improvised much punctuation and was occasionally confused about the lineation, as McMillin concludes.（８） It was not an unusual practice that a scribal copy taken from the dictation of actors who had memorized their parts was used to make a new promptbook, or a copy of the play for a
private patron or a copy of the play for sale to the printers.
For example, Thomas Heywood, in an address to the Reader in the１
６０８editionof his Rape of Lucrece, documented the perils of publication. Heywood was themost prolific writer of his generation, who claimed to have individually or collaboratively written more than two hundred plays.（９） Heywood was keenly aware of the―７１―

importance of publication and wrote more about the vicissitudes of dramatic authorship than any other playwright in the period. Heywood said :Yet since some of my plaies haue（unknown to me, and without any of my direction）accidentally come into the Printers handes, and thefore so corrupt andmangled,（coppied onely by he eare）that I haue bene as unagle to know them,as ashamed to challenge them.（１０）Heywood described the fate of his plays that had been published without authorial
involvement. These texts were so contaminated and fragmented that author himself
could not recognize as his products. On the other hand, The Rape of Lucrece wasprinted by consent, and provided authorial commitment :This therefore I was the willinger to furnish out in his natiue habit : first beingby consent, next because the rest haue beene so wronged in being publisht insuch sauadge and ragged ornaments : accept it Curteous Gentlemen, and proueas fauourable Readers as wee haue found yon gracious Auditors.（１１）Heywood always expressed his unwillingness in publication because of scribal errors and printing ones. But in the publication of The Apology for Actors Heywood
included the third address written to the printer, Nicholas Okes, who published The

Rape of Lucrece as well. The first address was an Epistle Dedicatory to the Earlof Worcester, the patron of the playing company he wrote for, and the second one
was addressed To my good Friends and Fellowes, / the Cittiy-Actors.

An address

to a printer was a rare practice and the textual space that Heywood saved for the address to the printer was traditionally used for an errata page. Heywood opened theaddress to the printer, Okes, with a story of prior printing errors made by anotherprinter :―７２―

The infinite faults escaped in my booke of Britaines Troy , by the negligenceof the Printer, as the misquotations, mistaking of syllables, misplacing halfelines, coining of strage and never heard of words.（１２）The printer in question was William Jaggard, whose printing house was entrusted toprint the first folio volume of Shakespeare’s collection around １
６２１. Heywood confessed Jaggard’s insolence of laying the blame on the author himself :These［errors］being without number, when I would have taken a particular account of the Errata, the Printer answered me, hee would not publish his owne
disworke-manship, but rather let his owne fault lye vpon the necke of the
Author.（１３）Heywood’s Troia Britanica, or Great Britarnes Troy, was printed by Jaggard in
１６０９. He condemned Jaggard’s unwillingness to make the meaning of his author intelligent to the reader. And this was not the only unfaithful dealing with Heywood
by the Jaggards’ printing house.

The third edition of The Passionate Pilgrime

printed in１
６１２（Figure１４）was another case. Jaggard contained some poems takenfrom Heywood’s Troia Britanica without the author’s consent and even his attribution,（１４） proclaimed it as By W. Shakespeare. In １５９９ Jaggard printed the second
edition with a title page ascribing Shakespeare as the sole author of the volume,
though, in fact, the work was an anthology containing verse by other contemporary
poets, including Marlowe, Raleigh, and Richard Barnfield. The title page attribution
attracted no attention until １
６１２, when the third edition appeared.

As a matter offact, no concept of copyright in its modern sense existed in Shakespeare’s time, andownership of texts was confined to publishers, who established their rights to produce a work by licensing it with the Stationers’ Company. So Jaggard in fact had―７３―the rights to publish those works in question. Yet Heywood could never refrain fromrecounting the printer’s abuses.
Okes, on the other hand, was faithful to Heywood and thus trustworthy :... finding you ... so carefull, and industrious, so serious and laborious to doe
the Author all the rights of the presse, I could not choose but gratulate yourhonest indeauors with this short remembrance... These, and the like dishonesties
I know you to bee cleere of ; and I could wish but to bee the happy Author ofso worthy a worke, as I could willingly commit to your care and workmanship.（１５）Heywood concluded his address by promising that he would willingly commit his
work to Okes’ printing house as a happy Author in the future. Okes was new tothe printing trade when he began to work with Heywood for the printing of The

Rape of Lucrece in １６０８.

But Okes’ commitment to printing drama deepened

quickly. He printed four plays in １６０８, four in １
６０９, and two in １６１１. During theperiod of １
６０８ and １６１１ Okes worked for Heywood（ The Rape of Lucrece and

The Golden Age ）, Middleton（ A Mad World My Masters ）, Shakespeare（ King
Lear ）, Jonson（ The Masque of Queens ）, Greville（ The Tragedy of Mustapha ）,Middleton and Dekker（ The Roaring Girl ）, and two other playwrights. After the
printing of The Apology for Actors（１６１２）, Okes printed five works by Heywood :The Silver Age（１６１３）, The Brazen Age（１６１３）, The Iron Age, Part１&２（１６３２）,
and The English Traveller（１６３３）. Yet Heywood’s long-standing relationship andhis appraisal never represented Okes’ reputation. Okes actually got into trouble forpiratical texts of Wither in １６１９ and １６２１（, １６） and on other occasions for other reasons.
In the case of Jaggard, Ralph Brooke, who published in １
６１９ a revision of Thomas Mille’s Catalogue of Honor, criticized Jaggard’s printing skills when he found―７４―

his text corrupted by the printer’s errors.（１７） Edward Topsell also condemned Jaggard’s workmanship for the manifolde escapes in the presse, which turned andsometimes ouerturned the sence in many places.

As Heywood did, Topsell com-plained of Jaggard’s misplacing of syllables,

and Brookes of his syllabicall

faults.

Jaggard was, as Topsell observed, short of the true knowledge of the Latine

tongue. （１８） The Jaggards’ printing house had been succeeded by William’s son,
Isaac, since his father had gone blind probably as early as １６１２（, １９） which might explain why the Jaggards’ had printing troubles with authors such as Heywood,
Brooke, and Topsell.
Yet the Jaggards’ printing house was selected to print the first folio of Shakespeare’s collection. At the time of the Folio project was conceived, Isaac Jaggard
was in his late twenties and had published just three books. It is curious why theKing’s Men had ventured to trust such an inexperienced printer to publish the monumental volume of the late master playwright despite the printer’s infamous businesswith several writers. Blayney suggests that Isaac Jaggard was the one who first suggested the venture but Blount was the principal investor. （２０） Blount was among the
publishers of the １６２３ Folio. He was in his fifties at this time and had served his
apprenticeship with William Ponsonby−the publisher of Spenser and Sidney among
others. Blount took over the business when Ponsonby died in １
６０３. Although Isaac
had little illustrious printing experience, the Jaggards’ printing house itself had actually theatrical connections of longstanding, having acquired the monopoly of playbill
printing when William Jaggard took over the business of James Roberts in １
６０８.（２１）
Furthermore, the Jaggards would have been well-placed to negotiate with some ofthose who held the rights to a number of Shakespeare plays. For example, Thomas
Pavier held the rights to ２ and ３Henry VI and Henry V and a claim to Titus An-

dronicus ; and William Jaggard had well connected with him, collaborating on publishing a number of play texts. Moreover, as Kastan suggests, Jaggard’s involvement with the first Folio had a practical reason :―７５―

Few stationers would have been

eager or even able to undertake a project the size of the Shakespeare folio. The
commitment of resources and the impossibility of any quick profits would make it
an unattractive venture for any but the most ambitious publishers, and the Jaggards
were the one who were willing to do it.（２２）―７６―

CHAPTER NINE

Textual Mystery

As far as the printing technique was concerned, Jaggard was not the only printerto be blamed for his inaccuracy.

As Hinman notes, printers in those days werelargely indifferent to the accuracy of his text,（１） and the proof-reader was not the exception. Taking the１
６２３folio for instance, Hinman says that there are hundreds ofvariants, and of variants that are unquestionably the result of proof-reading. （２） The
proof-reading of the Folio was arbitrary and unauthoritative throughout, and was
generally concerned rather to remove obvious typographical defects than to ensure
accuracy. （３） Therefore, as Hinman suggests, Shakespearean textual study is concerned with the nature of the copy used by the printer, and also with the printing
process itself :We must not forget ... that the authority of any printed text will also depend
upon how accurately the copy, whatsoever its nature, was reproduced in type.
Even small authority can be well printed ; and copy of the very highest authority may be so carelessly reproduced, or reproduced by such unsatisfactory methods and by such incompetent workmen, that text printed from it is seriously
corrupt. Different kinds of copy, moreover may be printed in different ways, sothat some plays may be more likely than others to suffer textual change in theprinting house.（４）―７７―Modern editors of Shakespeare, whenever they have to choose between a quarto
and folio text, have traditionally given one of the two the status of a preferred or
better text. As to the publishers’ reliability, the １
６２３ Folio was devised by Shakespeare’s fellow actors and was trusted to their chosen printers, whereas no one
knows how the １
６２２ quarto publisher of Othello acquired the copy. The circumstance may support the authority of the folio text of Othello . Considering theprinters’ workmanship, one may cast a doubt about the better quality of the folio
text. As we have already known, the workmanship of the Jaggards’ printing house
was criticized by the contemporary writers, while Okes’ was given a higher praiseby one of them. Yet both printers, Okes and the Jaggards, had troubles with theownership of manuscripts : Okes was suspected to print stolen manuscripts ofKing’s Men, while the Jaggards were involved with the unautholized collection of
Shakespeare plays, the Pavier quartos.
As far as the textual quality of the Quarto and the Folio is concerned, Hinman
notes that F Othello is more reliable with substantive variants and verse lineation,and less reliable with at least some indifferent variants, punctuation, stage directions
and profanity. （５） Then, how have modern editors concluded about the provenanceand transmission of the Quarto and the Folio? A brief survey of editorial thinking of
influential bibliographers shows how the Quarto and the Folio texts have been incorporated in their modern editions :１.

E. K. Chambers（１９３０）: F was printed from the original and Q from a notvery faithful transcript. （６）２.

Alice Walker（１９５３）: Q was a memorially contaminated text, printed froma manuscript for which a book-keeper was possibly responsible and basedon the play as acted ; F was printed from a copy of the quarto which had
been corrected by collation with a more authoritative manuscript. （７）３.

W.W. Greg（１９５５）:

Q appears to have been printed from a transcript,―７８―perhaps of the foul papers ; F was printed from a copy of Q collated witha manuscript. The manuscript was probably the prompt-book prepared by ascribe. （８）４.

J.K. Walton（１９７１）: F was printed from a manuscript, not from corrected
Q.（９）

５.

Stanley Wells（１９８７）: Q represents a scribal copy of foul papers. F represents a scribal copy of Shakespeare’s own revised manuscript of theplay. （１０）６.

Richard Proudfoot（１９７２）: F was printed from corrected Q.（１１）７.

Gary Taylor（１９８３）: F was printed from a manuscript, not from corrected
Q.（１２）

８.

E.A.J. Honigmann（１９９６）: Q is a scribal copy of Shakespeare’s first draft ;F is a scribal copy of the authorial fair copy. Shakespeare（like otherdramatists of the period）wrote a first draft or foul papers and also a faircopy. （１３）

The textual controversy among the Shakespearean bibliographers has not yet settled ;and so many uncertainties about the textual problems still remain unsolved.
Yet, as McMillin summarises, the editorial tradition has decided that F is preferred but not infallible, and where it seems to fall away from Shakespearean authenticity, Q１ is waiting as the back-up text for a better reading. （１４） The editions concerned are : the first Arden edition edited by H.C. Hart ; the Cambridge edition of
１９５７edited by Alice Walker and J.D. Dover Wilson ; the New Cambridge edition of
１９８４ edited by Norman Sanders ; the one-volume complete Shakespeares known as

the Riverside , the Bevington , the Oxford , and the Norton ; and the third Arden
edition（１９９６）edited by E.A.J. Honigmann. Honigmann has analyzed that Q１ isthe better text ; yet he concludes that he may want to re-edit Othello with Q１ asparent text when others have reviewed the textual situation and dispelled uncertain―７９―

ties.（１５）Q１ Othello reflects cuts and actors’ interpolations made in the playhouse. Thus,
as McMillin and others argue, the Quarto was probably printed from a theatre script
which was apparently taken from dictation by a scribe listening to the actors. Thenseveral questions arise : First of all, when did the actors’ performance take place?
Was that the court performance or the Blackfriar one, or rather the one in rehearsal?
We know the court performance in １６０４, the London and Oxford performances of
１６１０, and the court performances of １
６１２-１３. However, the range of possibilities ismuch broader since every performance was not always recorded then.

Othello was a popular play and, as McMillin suggests, the text could very wellhave been revised, perhaps several times, during the two decades between its first
performance and its first printing. （１６） Yet the oaths which are prominent in Q１ mayprove that the text goes back to performances before １６０６, when An Acte to Restraine Abuses of Players was passed for the preventing and avoiding of the greate
Abuse of the Holy Name of God in Stageplayes, Interludes, Maygames, Shewes, andsuch like. （１７） Printed profanities were not in violation of the Act, and there aremany examples of oaths in printed plays dating from after １６０６. But profanity inpublic performance was against the law. If the Q１text was dictated from a performance version of the play, the inclusion of the oaths could be taken as an indicationof performance dates.
If the performance date was sometime before １６０６, the question is : when andhow did Thomas Walkley and Nicholas Okes obtain the Othello manuscript? Walkley entered Othello in the Stationers’ Resister on ６th October, １６２１, when theKing’s Men had already lodged the staying order to prohibit the publication of theirplays without their consent. Yet Walkley and Okes published five King’s Men plays
including Othello between １６１９ and １６２２. Kenneth Cameron notes that the fiveplays share the characteristic of having act divisions, that four of the plays including

Othello were performed during the busy court season of １６１２-１３, and that all five―８０―

plays probably had a promptbook origin.（１８） The １６１９ quarto of A King and No

King contained a dedicatory letter to Sir Henry Neville which said that the printed
book would return unto your view, that which formerly hath been received fromyou. （１９） As McMillin notes, it appears that the manuscript came to Walkley from
Neville.

But the letter mentioned nothing about King’s Men’s permission.

The

１６２２ quarto of Othello had a dedicatory epistle from the stationer to the reader, but
it did not refer to from whom the stationer obtained the manuscript.

After all, whether the manuscript was originated from Shakespeare’s foul papers,
or a promptbook, or a scribal copy, is a hypothesis. There is no extant copies of
Shakespeare’s original manuscript（except that of Sir Thomas More ）; and every
bibliographical theory so far has been built upon hypothetical analysis. We are still
not certain what Shakespeare wrote. In the case of Q１ Othello , nothing is certain
about the textual problems and all the details have not yet fully investigated on the
publication history itself.

―８１―

CHAPTER TEN

A New History, A New Reading

The New Bibliography is a critical movement that W.W. Greg and his textual colleagues had developed in the early twentieth century to systematize the editing of
Elizabethan drama by analyzing all aspects of textual transmission and by formulating principles for editing. Greg and the New Bibliography were to remain unassailable for thirty years. But serious challenges to New Bibliography first came in １９７５
with an article by Constance B. Kuriyama, followed by articles from Michael Warren and Randall McLeod（１９８１）, and books by Scott McMillin（１９８７）and David（１）
Bradley（１９９２）. The main argument used there was that the notions of bad Quar-tos,foul papers,

memorial reconstructions, and the like, were merely intellec-

tual constructs, hypotheses based not on the scientific method for which the New
Bibliography had been renowned, but on assumption and critical prejudice.
The most influential argument aimed at discrediting the basic tenets of the New
Bibliography is, in Maguire’s review,（２） a paper by Paul Werstine in １
９９０. Werstine’s main point is that the textual categories of foul papers and memorial reconstruction are hypothetical constructs that have yet to be empirically validated withreference to any extant Shakespeare quarto. （３） Yet Werstine never ignores how
much the modern editors have been owed to Greg’s theory, and so much of what
follows will take issue with the direction that Greg set. （４） What Werstine suggests
is that we should relocate the general theory in its historical context and call thepresuppositions into question.（５）W.W.Greg began to develop his theory of the production and reproduction ofearly modern plays in manuscript in a １
９２６ article, Prompt Copies, Private Tran―８２―scripts, and the Playhouse Scrivener.

（６）

In The Editorial Problem in Shakespeare（１９４２）and The Shakespeare First Folio（１９５５）, the theory appears to be grounded
upon a objective survey of extant dramatic manuscripts. But Greg’s theory is, as
Werstine argues, logically a priori ... to any survey of the manuscripts and chronologically prior to his own limited survey of them in Dramatic Documents（１９３１）.（７） Greg classified the manuscripts into three categories : Class A contains
what he called promptbook proper, or transcripts of them ; Class B has manuscripts
prepared for some private purpose ; and Class C includes a miscellaneous collection.
Greg assumed that the foul paper was the final form of the play as the author intended it, while the phrase had been originally used to describe a text that is incomplete in relation to the text of a theatrical manuscript （８）by Edward Knight in histranscribing for a patron the manuscript of Bonduca by John Fletcher.（９） Greg defined foul papers as a draft containing the text substantially in the form the author
intended it to assume though in a shape too untidy to be used by the prompter, （１０）or the text of a play substantially in its final form. （１１）Greg’s classification of manuscripts, his assumption of the class of authoritative
playhouse manuscripts, and his appropriation of the foul paper had establishedwhat is still accepted by many present editors as the general theory of the production
and reproduction of early modern plays in manuscript.（１２） The contribution of the
New Bibliography was, as Melchiori reviews, that of showing how from a printed
text it is possible to reconstruct the state of the original manuscript with all its accretions and corrections. （１３） In order to establish the copy that went to the printer, theNew Bibliographers engaged in what was essentially detective work ; and yet thetheories were basically constructive. （１４） However, Werstine criticizes that generations of editors have been able simply to reproduce Greg’s judgements and arguments. （１５） Werstine offers that an editor should set aside Greg’s theory and copewith the extant dramatic manuscripts in their variety and disuniformity. （１６） Afterthe serious challenges to New Bibliographic work in the late twentieth century, the―８３―

scholarly consensus in the ９０’s is, as Anthony Hammond summarized for the Conference on Editorial Problems in１９８８, that an Elizabethan dramatist’s usual practice
was to produce a complete script in foul papers form, following which a fair copy
would be prepared, either by the author or a scribe, and that this copy would be annotated and altered to fit the play for the stage, a process which might involve allkinds of adaptations, including modifications in response to censor’s demands. （１７）The new generation of critics has demolished ahistoric and hypothetical aspects of
the New Bibliography ; and at the same time they have cultivated wider and deeper
cultural and textual layers of ground of Elizabethan drama. Playwrights and scripts
have been therefore relocated within the social and material circumstances in which
Elizabethan drama was enabled and inhibited. They have been recognized within thedetermining context in which plays were written, produced, performed, sold, published, patronized, read, censored and exploited by the powerful, and watched andlistened to by a socially diverse population. Authorship, collaboration, theatre companies, performance, touring, book trade, publication, patronage, audiences, readers,and censorship have been under careful scrutiny. The analysis of the complex social
process of literary production has enabled a new vision and appreciation of Elizabethan dramatic milieu ; and at the same time we have come to face the reality thatwhat Shakespeare really wrote is the notion created by modern editors’ textual desire. As Honigmann confesses in editing Othello , Shakespearean textual problems
have still not been solved. An edition can never give us what the author wrote because we do not have the evidence which would suggest that there finally was sucha definitive thing.

Every time an editor amends a text, the editor of The Oxford

Shakespeare notes, he is, to an extent, reconstructing its author in his own image. （１８） Readers and editors, whether conscious or not, have reinvented what they
imagine Shakespeare really wrote.

―８４―

The publication history of Othello has revealed the cultural process of literary
production ; yet the textual mystery remains to be explored by patient textual scrutiny from future editors, and from non-passive readers who keep an eye on how the
text has been edited. Our reading of Shakespeare will never be completed.

―８５―

NOTESINTRODUCTION
１．E.K. Chambers, William Shakespeare : A Study of Facts and Problems, ２vols.
（Oxford : Clarendon Press,１９３０）, vol.２, p.３
７１; pp.５０４-６.
２．Peter Blayney, The First Folio of Shakespeare（Washington, D.C. ; Folger Library Publications,１
９９１）, p.１５.
３．Charlton Hinman, The Norton Facsimile : The First Folio of Shakespeare（NewYork : W.W. Norton,１９６８）
４．Anthony Hammond, The Noisy Comma : Searching for the Signal in Renaissance Dramatic Texts, in Crisis in Editing, ed. Randy McLeod（New York :AMS Press,１
９９４）, pp.２０３-４９.
５．John Kerrigan, The editor as reader : constructing Renaissance texts, in The

Practice and Representation of Reading in England, eds. James Raven and Helen Small, and Naomi Tadmor（Cambridge : Cambridge UP,１
９９６）, pp.１
０２-２４.

CHAPTER ONE
１．Edwin Elliott Willoughby, The Printing of the First Folio（Oxford U.P. for the
Bibliographical Society,１９３２）, pp.２８-２９; pp.３
３-３８; pp.５２-５３.
２．L. Kirschbaum, Walkley’s Supposed Piracy of Wither’s Workes in１６２０, The

Library（１９３８-３９）, XIX,３３９-４６.
３．E.A.J. Honigmann, The Texts of Othello and Shakespearian Revision（London : Routledge, １９９６）, p.２
２. As for the details of the lawsuit between Walkley and Everard, see Appendix B, pp.１
５２-５６.
４． Ibid., pp.２２-２３.
５． Ibid., p.２７.
―８６―

６．W.W. Greg, The Shakespeare First Folio : Its Bibliographical and Textual His-tory（Oxford : Oxford U.P.,１９５５）, p.３５７.
７． Records of the Court of the Stationers’ Company１
６０２to１６４０, ed. W.A. Jackson（１９５７）,１１０.
８．W.W. Greg, First Folio, pp.１５-１６.
９． Ibid., p.２４.
１０． Ibid., p.２４.
１１． Ibid., p.２４.
１２．See, for example, Mark Rose, Authors and Owners : The Invention of Copyright（Cambridge, Mass. : Harvard U.P.,１９９３）, p.２１.
１３．The Pavier quartos include : The Whole Contention（n.d.）［the variant versionsof ２nd and ３rd Henry VI were grouped together under this title］, Pericles（１６１９）, A Yorkshire Tragedy（１６１９）, The Merchant of Venice（１６００）, The

Merry Wives of Windsor（１６１９）, King Lear（１６０８）, Henry V（１６０８）, Sir
John Oldcastle（１６００）, and A midsummer Night’s Dream（１６００）. As for the
publication history, see Andrew Murphy, Shakespeare in Print（Cambridge :Cambridge U.P., ２００３）, pp.３６-４１; and for a concise analysis of the Pavier
quartos, see Berger and Lander’s essay, Shakespeare in Print, １
５９３-１６４０, in

A Companion to Shakespeare, ed. David Scott Kastan（Oxford : Blackwell,
１９９９）, pp.３９５-４１３, esp. pp.４
０３-４０５.
１４．Murphy, Shakespeare, pp.４０-４１; see also, William Shakespeare : A Textual

Companion, eds. Stanley Wells and Gary Taylor （London : W.W. Norton,
１９９７）, pp.３５-３６.
１５．Honigmann, Texts, pp.２６-２７.
１６． The First Quarto of Othello , The New Cambridge Shakespeare, ed. Scott
McMillin（Cambridge : Cambridge U.P.,２
００１）.
１７．The title page :A Pleasant conceited comedie called, loues labors lost. As it

was presented before her highness this last Christmas. Newly corrected and―８７―

augmented By W. Shakespeare.
１８．Douglas A. Brooks, From Playhouse to Printing House （Cambridge : Cambridge U.P.,２０００）, p.５９.
１９．Jeffrey Masten, Textual Intercourse （Cambridge : Cambridge U.P., １９９７）, pp.
１１３-５５.
２０．The speaker of John Davies of Hereford’s Paper’s Complaint derides those who
pester Pasts, with Titles of new bookes, quoted from The Complete Works ofJohn Davies of Hereford, ed. Alexander B. Grosart, ２vols.（London : Privately
Printed,１
８７５-７７, rpt. New York : AMS Press,１
９６７）, II.７６.
２１．W.W. Greg, A Bibliography of the English Printed Drama to the Restoration. ４
vols.（London : Bibliographical Society,１９３９-５９）, vol. III. p.１２０９.
２２．Peter Blayney, The Publication of Playbooks, in A New History of Early Eng-

lish Drama, eds. John D. Cox and David Scott Kastan（New York : Columbia
U.P.,１９９７）, p.３
８５.
２３．Greg includes masques, pageants and entertainments, closet and academic plays,
Latin plays and translations published as literary texts in his calculation ; on theother hand, Blayney adjusts the number by subtracting all of them because heconsiders what we would usually call plays are only those written for professional public performance by both adult and juvenile companies.
２４．Blayney, Publication, pp.４１２-１３.
２５． Ibid., pp.３８８-８９.

CHAPTER TWO
１． Records of the Court of the Stationers’ Company, １
５７６ to １６０２, eds. W. W.
Greg and E. Boswell（London : Bibliographical Society,１９３０）, lxix-lxx.
２．Blayney, Publication, pp.３９６-４０５.
３． A Transcript of the Registers of the Company of Stationers of London ;１
５５４-

１６４０A.D., ed. Edward Arber,５vols.（London : n.p., １８７５-７９; Birmingham : n.
―８８―

p.１８９４）,１: xxxviii.
４． Ibid., ２:８０７-１２;４:５２８-３６.
５．Richard Dutton, Mastering the Revels（London : Mcmillan,１９９１）,pp.１４８-６２.
６．Blayney, Publication, pp.３９８-４００; Greg, Bibliography, １:１５-２１.
７．Graham Pollard, The Early Constitution of the Stationers’ Company,

The Li-brary, ４th ser.,１８（１９３７-３８）:２５４-５９.
８．Blayney cites four cases : among them are, for example, the license granted to
Mulcaster’s Positions ... for the Training up of Children（１５８１）and the one for
Hopton’s Concordancy of Years（１６１２ and １６１５）; Blayney, Publication , p.
３９９.
９．Greg and Boswell, Records, lxix,５７.
１０．Leo Kirschbaum, Shakespeare and the Stationers（Columbus : Ohio State U.P.,
１９５５）, pp.６
１-７４.
１１．Blayney, Publication, p.４０１.
１２． Records of the Court of the Stationers’ Company, １
６０２ to １６４０, ed. William
A. Jackson（London : Bibliographical Society,１
９５７）, p.１４９.
１３． Ibid., p.１７１,４７１,２２４, and４７８.
１４．Arber, Transcript, ４:５３０.
１５．W.W. Greg, The Spanish Tragedy−a Leading Case?,

The Library（１９２５）:

４７-５６.
１６．One surviving manuscript that shows Tilney at work in this role is Sir Thomas

More .
１７．Andrew Gurr, Maximal and Minimal Texts : Shakespeare v. the Globe, Shake-speare Survey ５２（１９９９）,６８-８７.
１８．Blayney, Publication, p.３８５.
１９． Ibid., p.３９２.
２０．Arber, Transcript, II.,６
５１-５２, III.５７５.
２１． Ibid., III.２２６.
―８９―

２２．Blayney, Publication, pp.３９７-９８.
２３．Harold Love, Scribal Publications in Seventeenth-Century England（Oxford :Clarendon Press,１
９９３）, p.６７.
２４．Lukas Erne, Shakespeare as Literary Dramatist（Cambridge : Cambridge U.P.,
２００３）, pp.１
０８-４０.
２５． Ibid., p.１０９; and also see, Appendix A.
２６．W.W. Greg, Bibliography, vol. III, p.１２１３.
２７． Ibid., pp.１２０６-０７.
２８． Ibid., p.１２１３.
２９．Erne, Shakespeare, p.９１.
３０．Leeds Barroll, Politics, Plague and Shakespeare’s Theatre（Ithaca : Cornell U.P.,
１９９１）, p.１７３.
３１．Erne, Shakespeare, p.１０９.
３２． Ibid., p.６４.

CHAPTER THREE
１．Brooks, Printing, pp.１７３-７７, which based on the data in Alfred Harbage’s An-

nals of English Drama, ９７５-１７００, revised by S. Schoenbaum（London : Methuen,１
９６４）.
２．Gerald Bentley, The Profession of Player in Shakespeare’s Time, １５９０-１６４２（Princeton : Princeton U.P.,１
９７１）, p.１５.
３． Ibid., p.１６.
４． Ibid., p.１６.
５．Brooks, Printing, pp.１７９-８０.
６． Ibid., pp.１８１-８２;

Receved of Wylliam greffeth for his lycense for pryntingeof a Trag［e］die of GORBODUC where［of］iij actes were Wretten by Thomas Norton and the laste by Thomas Sackvyle , cited in Arber, Ibid ., p.２９６.
７．Erne, Shakespeare, p.４２.
―９０―８．Arthur Marotti, Manuscript, Print, and The English Renaissance Lyric（Ithaca :Cornell U.P.,１
９９５）, p.２１０.
９． Ibid., p.２２８,３９n.
１０．J.W. Saunders, The Stigma of Print : A Note on the Social Bases of Tudor Poetry, Essays in Criticism １（１９５１）:１３９-６４.
１１．Marotti, Manuscript, pp.２２３-２５; pp.３
０２-０８.
１２．George Gascoigne’s A Hundreth Sundrie Flowres, ed. C.T. Prouty, Universityof Missouri Studies, vol. １７, No. ２（１９４２; reprint, Columbia : Univ. of Missouri Press,１
９７０）, p.４７.
１３．Marotti, Manuscript, P.５０.
１４．Arthur Marotti, John Donne : Coterie Poet（Madison : Univ. of Wisconsin
Press,１９８６）;
cial Order,

Love is not Love : Elizabethan Sonnet Sequences and the So-

ELH ４９（１９８２）,３９６-４２８; and The transmission of Lyric Poetry

and the Institutionalizing of Literature in the English Renaissance, in Contend-

ing Kingdoms : Historical, Psychological, and Feminist Approaches to the Literature of Sixteenth-Century England and France, ed. Marie-Rose Logan andPeter L. Rudnytsky（Detroit : Wayne State U.P.,１
９９１）,２１-４１.
４-７９.
１５．Wendy Wall, The Imprint of Gender（Ithaca : Cornell U.P.,１９９３）, pp.７
１６． Ibid., pp.７９-８２.

CHAPTER FOUR
１．Marotti, Manuscript, p.３.
２．George Puttenham, The Arte of English Poesie（１５８９; facsimile, Menston, U.
K. : Scolar Press,１
９６８）, pp.４３-４４,４９.
３．Julia Boffey, Manuscripts, of English Courtly Love Lyrics in the Later Middle

Ages, Manuscript Studies １（Woodbridge, Suffolk : D.S. Brewer, １９８５）, pp.
１３４-３５.
４． Ibid., pp.１５-１７.
―９１―

５． Ibid., pp.１５-１９.
６．On the custom of keeping commonplace books, see R.R. Bolgar, The Classical

Heritage and Its Beneficiaries from the Carolingian Age to the End of the Renaissance（１９５４; reprint, New York : Harper & Row,１９６４）, pp.２６５-７５.
７．Harold Love, Scribal Publication in Seventeenth Century England（Oxford :Clarendon Press,１
９９３;２００１）, p.１７７.
８．Broadly defining answer poetry, E.F. Hart distinguishes four different sorts ofverse : the answer proper, in which the theme of arguments of a poem are
criticized as a whole, or（more usually）refuted one by one ; imitations ;extension poems [that] develop or amplify some idea, image, or characteristicfeature of rhythm or style of the original poem ; and mock-songs. E.F. Hart,
The Answer-Poems of the Early Seventeenth Century,

RES, n.s., ７（１９５６）:

１９-２９.
９． The Arundel Harington Manuscript of Tudor Poetry, ２vols. ed. Ruth Hughey（Columbus Ohio,１
９６０,１:４４-４５.
１０．Marotti, Manuscript, p.１４２.
１１． Liber Lilliati : Elizabethan Verse and Song, Bodleian MS Rawlinson Poetry

１４８, ed. Edward Doughtie（London : Associated U.P.,１９８５）, p.１６５.
１２．H.R. Woudhuysen, Sir Philip Sidney and the Circulation of Manuscripts, １
５５８-

１６４０（Oxford : Clarendon Press,１９９６）, pp.１５９-６１.
１３． Ibid., Introduction.
１４．Love, Scribal, pp.２１８-２９.
１５．Laurence A. Cummings, John Finet’s Miscellany（Washington University, PhD,
１９６０）, pp.６１-６２.
１６． Ibid., pp.２７-３２,４５-４６.
１７．Woudhuysen, Sidney, pp.２６１-６２.
１８．Cummings, Finet’s, pp.９-１４.
１９． Ibid., pp.５０４-８.
―９２―

２０．Doughtie, Lilliati, Rawlinson Poetry８
５.
２１．Cummings, Finet ’s, pp.１０４-５.
２２．Edward Doughtie, John Ramsey’s Manuscript as a Personal and Family Document, in New Ways of Looking at Old Texts, ed. W. Speed Hill（Papers of
the Renaissance English Text Society,１９８５-１９９１）, pp.２５１-８８.
２３．J.W. Saunders, The Profession of English Letters（London : Routledge andKegan Paul,１
９６４）, p.４３.
２４． Ibid., p.４３.
２５．John Harington, Letters and Epigrams of Sir John Harington, ed. Norman Egbert McClure（Philadelphia : Univ. of Pennsylvania Press,１９３０）, No.４２４,３２０.
２
６． Ibid ., p.１６４.

CHAPTER FIVE
１． Tottel’s Miscellany（１５５７-８７）, ed. Hyder Rollings, ２vols., ２nd ed.（Cambridge,
Mass. : Harvard U.P.,１９２７）,１:２.
２． Ibid., １:２.
３．Barnabe Googe, Eclogues, Epitaphs, and Sonnets, STC１２０４８（１５６３）, ed. Judith M. Kennedy（Toronto : Univ. of Toronto Press,１
９８９）,３８.
４．George Pettie, The Preface to the Readers,Introduction to Steven Guazzo,

STC １２４２２（１５８１）, trans. George Pettie, reprint ed. Charles Whibley（NewYork : Alfred A Knopf,１９２５）,８-９.
５．See, for example, W.A. Ringler Jr., Sir Philip Sidney : The Myth and theMan, in Sir Philip Sidney :１５８６ and the Creation of a Legend, ed. Jan van
Dorsten, Dominic Baker-Smith, and Arthur Kinney（Leiden : E.J. Brill / Leiden
U.P. for the Sir Thomas Browne Institute,１９８６）, pp.３-１５.
６．Wall, Imprint, pp.３３-３４.
７．Marotti, Shakespeare’s Sonnets as Literary Property, in Soliciting Interpreta-tion, ed. Elizabeth D. Harvey and Katharine Eisaman Maus（Chicago : Univ.,―９３―

of Chicago Press,１９９０）, pp.１４３-７３.
８． Ibid., p.１４３.
９．Gabriel Harvey, Pierce’s Supererogation, in Elizabethan Critical Essays, edited with an introduction by G. Gregory Smith, ２vols.（１９０４: reprint, Oxford
U.P.,１９５９）,２:２６５.
１０．Samuel Daniel, Poems and A Defense of Ryme, ed. Arthur Colby Spragne（Chicago : Univ. of Chicago Press,１９３０）, p.９.
１１．Cited in Marotti, Manuscript, p.２３３.

CHAPTER SIX
１． Letters of Sir Thomas Bodley to Thomas James, Keeper of the Bodleian Li-

brary, ed. G. W. Wheeler（Oxford : Oxford U.P.,１９２６）, p.２２０.
２． Ibid., p.４０.
３． Ibid., p.２２２.
４．Alexandra Halasz, The Marketplace of Print（Cambridge : Cambridge U.P.,
１９９７）, p.１.
５．Wheeler, Bodley, pp.２１９-２２.
６．Ian Philip, The Bodleian Library in the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries,
Lyell Lectures, Oxford,１
９８０-８１（Oxford : Clarendon Press,１
９８３）, pp.３２-３３.
７．Wheeler, Bodley, pp.２１９-２２. Two playbooks, however, did in fact found theirway into the collection of the Bodleian : the１６２０ Library catalogue lists Robert
Dabourne’s A Christian Turn’d Turke （１６１２）and Thomas Heywood’s The

Four Prentices of London （１６１５）. Bodley had died in late January, １６１３, and,as Kastan observes, their presence seems more likely to be accidental than tomark a change of library policy. ［David Scott Kastan, Shakespeare and theBook （Cambridge : Cambridge U.P.,２００１）, p.１３９５n.］
８． Ibid., pp.７-８.
９．F.J. Furnival, Sir John Harington’s Shakespeare Quartos,―９４―

Notes and Queries

９（１８９０）,３８２-８３; E.K. Chambers, The Elizabethan Stage, ４vols.（Oxford :Clarendon Press,１
９２３）, vol. III, p.１８３.
１０．T.A. Birrell, Reading as Pastime : The Place of Light Literature in Some Gentlemen’s Libraries of the Seventeenth Century, in Property of a Gentleman :The Formation, Organisation and Dispersal of the Private Library, １６２０-１９２０,
ed. Robin Myers and Michael Harris（Winchester : St. Paul’s Bibliographies,
１９９１）, p.１
１３-３１.
１１．Nicolas K. Kiessling, The Library of Robert Burton（Oxford : BibliographicalSociety,１
９８８）,４３,８７.
１２．Heidi Brayman Hackel,

Rowme of Its Own : Printed Drama in Early Librar-ies, in A New History of Early English Drama, ed. John D. Cox and David
Scott Kastan（New York : Columbia U.P.,１
９９７）, p.１２２.
１３．Frank Taylor, The Books and Manuscripts of Scipiole Squyer, Deputy Chamberlain of the Exchequer（１６２０-５９）, Bulletin of the John Rylands Library, ２５（１９４１）,１３７-６４.
１４．T.N.S. Lennam, Sir Edward Dering’s Collection of Playbooks, １
６１９-１６２４,

Shakespeare Quarterly, １６（１９６５）,１４５-５３.
１５．Philip, Bodleian Library, p.３３.
１６．See, for example, E.S. Leedham-Green, Books in Cambridge Inventories :Book-Lists from Vice-Chancellor’s Court Probate Inventories in the Tudor andStuart Periods. ２vols.（Cambridge : Cambridge U.P.,１９８６）, xiii.
１７．W.W. Greg, Entrance, license and publication,

The Library, ２５（１９４４）, pp.

１-７.
１８．Blayney, Publication, p.４１２.
１９． Ibid., p.３８７.
２０．Hackel, Rowmes, p.１２４. For an overview of probate inventories and the methodological problems they raise, see Leedham-Green, Books, xi-xiv ; and Sears
Jayne, Library Catalogues of the English Renaissance（Berkeley : Univ. of Cali―９５―

fornia Press,１
９５６）, p.９-１５.
２１．David Cressy, Literacy and the Social Order : Reading and Writing in Tudor

and Stuart England（Cambridge : Cambridge U.P., １９８０）, p.２１２, ２２n, ２３n, and２４n.
２２．Peter Clark, The Ownership of Books in England,１
５６０-１６４０: The Example ofSome Kentish Townsfolk, cited in Lawrence Stone（ed）, Schooling and Soci-ety : Studies in the History of Education（Baltimore : Johns Hopkins U.P.,
１９７６）, p.９
８.
２３． Ibid., p.１０３.
２４．Marotti, Manuscript, p.２２７,３６n.
２５．Blayney, Publication, pp.１２４-２５.
２６． Ibid., pp.４２２,６n.
２７．Henrietta C. Bartlett and Alfred W. Pollard, ed., A Census of Shakespeare’s

Plays in Quarto,１５９４-１７０９, ２nd. ed.（rev. New Haven : Yale U.P.,１９３９; NewYork : AMS ; rep.１
９７１）, p.２５.
２
８．F.R. Johnson, Notes on English Retail Book-prices, １
５５０-１６４０,

The Library,th

５ ser.,５（１９５０-５１）:９１,１
０９.

CHAPTER SEVEN
１．Margery Corbett and R.S. Lightbown, The Comely Frontispiece（London :Routledgte & Kegan Paul,１９７９）, pp.１４５-５０.
２．Joseph Lowenstein, The Script in the Marketplace,

Representations １２（Fall

１９８５）:１０１.
３．Corbett, Frontispiece, p.１５０.
４．Louis Montrose, Spenser’s Domestic Domain : Poetry, Property, and the Early
Modern Subject, in Subject and Object in Renaissance Culture, ed. Margreta
de Grazia, Manreen Quilligan, and Peter Stallybrass（Cambridge : Cambridge
U.P.,１
９９６）, pp.８３-１３２.
―９６―

５．William Prynne, Histrio-Mastix : The Players Scourge（London,１
６３３）.
６．Blayney, Publication, pp.４１４-１５.
７．W.W. Greg, Bibliography, vol. I, p.xviii.
８．Zachary Lesser, Walter Burre’s Knight of the Burning Pestle , forthcoming in

English Literary Renaissance. Cited in Brooks, Printing, p.４５. Ibid., p.４５.
９． Ibid., p.４５.
１０． Ibid., p.４５.
１１． Ibid., p.４５.
１２．John Webster, To the Reader in The White Devil in The Complete Works,
ed. F.L. Lucas,４vols.（London : Chatto and Windus,１９２７）.
１３． Ibid.
１４． Ibid.
１５．Barbara A. Mowat, Constructing the Author, in Elizabethan Theatre : Essaysin Honor of S. Schoenbaum, eds., R.B. Parker and S.P. Zitner（Newark : Univ.
of Delaware Press,１
９９６）, pp.９３,９７,１１０.
１６．Ben Jonson, Catiline in Ben Jonson, eds., C.H. Herford, Percy Simpson, andEvelyn Simpson,１
１vols.（Oxford : Clarendon Press,１
９２５-５２）.
１７．Ben Jonson, The Alchemist in Ben Jonson.
１８．Lesser, cited in Brooks, Printing, p.２３９,１０１n.
１９．John Fletcher, The Faithful Shepherdess cited in W.W. Greg, Bibliography,
vol. III, p.１２０９.
２０． Ibid., p.１２０９.
２１．Jonson, Alchemist.
２２． Ibid.
２３．Martha Straznicky, Closet Drama, in A Companion to Renaissance Drama,
ed. Arthur Kinney（Oxford : Blackwell,２００２）, p.４２２.
２４．Anthony Scoloker, Daphantus, or The Passions of Love, STC２１８５３（London :１６０）, sig. Asv, cited in Wall, Imprint, p.１.
―９７―

２５．Brooks, Printing , pp.５５-５６.
２６．Gerald Eades Bentley, The Profession of Dramatist in Shakespeare’s Time,

１５９０-１６４２（Princeton : Princeton U.P.,１９７１）, p.２７９.
２７．Richard Dutton, The Birth of an Author, in Text and Cultural Change in Early

Modern England, eds. Cedric C. Brown and Arthur Marotti（New York : St.
Martin’s Press,１
９９７）, p.１５８.
２８．Greg noted that it had sometimes been doubted whether the dedicatory epistle aand the adress to the reader were actually written by Heminge and Condell andthat the pieces may have been composed by Edward Blount. Blount had served
his apprenticeship with William Ponsonby, who published Spenser and Sidney.
Blount took over his business when Ponsonby died in １
６０３. In Greg’s phrase,
Blount was a man of some literary aspiration ; and, in fact, he had been afriend of Marlowe and published Marlowe, Montaigne and Cervantes.
Yet Greg also referred to the theory of Ben Jonson’s authorship. It was firstsuggested by George Steevens in a note in the １
８０３ Variorum（i. １６６）, which
begins with the quotation from Batholomew Fair and ends, Perhaps Old Ben
was author of the Players’ Preface . The theory was brushed aside by Pollard
８２１ Vari（ Folios and Quartos, p.１２２）; and the advanced arguments in the １orum by Boswell were rejected by Simpson（ Ben Jonson, xi. １４０-４）. E.K.
Chambers, however, supported Jonson’s authorship（ William Shakespeare, i.
１４２）. Greg thought Jonson’s claim better than Blount’s.［W.W. Greg, The

Shakespeare First Folio : Its Bibliographical and Textual History（Oxford :Clarendon Press,１
９５５）, pp.１７-２１; pp.２
６-２７.］
２９．Straznicky, Closet Drama, p.４２２.
３０．Virgil B. Heltzel, The Dedication of Tudor and Stuart Plays, Wiener Beitrage

zur Engliscyhen Philologie, ６５（１９５７）,７４-８６.
３１． Ibid ., pp.８０-８１.
３２．McMillin, Quarto, p.４９.
―９８―

CHAPTER EIGHT
１．McMillin, Quarto, p.９.
２．Honigmann, Texts, p.１０３.
３．McMillin, Quarto , pp.１７-２７.
４． Ibid. , pp.１７-２７.
５．McMillin, Re-enter the Stage Direction, Shakespeare Survey ２９（１９７６）,１
２３.
６．McMillin, Quarto, p.３０.
７． Ibid., p.３０.
８． Ibid., p.３０.
９．W.W. Greg, Bibliography, vol. III. p.１２１３.
１０． Ibid., p.１２０８.
１１． Ibid., p.１２０８.
１２． Ibid., p.１２０８.
１３． Ibid., p.１２０８.
１４． The New Variorum Edition of Shakespeare : The Poems, ed. Hyder Edward
Rollins（London : J.B. Lippincott Company, １９３８）, pp.５３３-３８; see also Thomas Heywood, An Apology for Actors（１６１２）and Refutation of the Apology

for Actors（１６１５）, ed. Richard H. Perkinson（New York : Scholars’ Facsimiles& Reprints,１９４１）, pp.xii-xiii.
１５．W.W. Greg, Bibliography, vol. III. p.１２０８.
１６．Peter Blayney, The Texts of King Lear and their Origins, vol.１（Cambridge :Cambridge U.P.,１
９８２）, pp.２９８-９９.
１７．Honigmann, Texts, pp.５０-５１.
１８．Edward Topsell, To the Reader in The Historie of Serpents（１６０８）, cited in
Honigmann, Texts, p.５７.
１９．E.E. Willoughby, A Printer of Shakespeare : The Books and Times of William

Jaggard（London : Allan & Co.,１９３４）, p.４.
―９９―

２０．Blayney, The First Folio of Shakespeare（Washington, D.C. : Folger Library
Publications,１
９９１）, p.xxviii.
２１．Willoughby, Printer, pp.４２-４３.
２２．David Scott Kastan, Shakespeare and the Book（Cambridge : Cambridge U.P.,
２００１）, pp.５７-６
０.

CHAPTER NINE
１．Charlton Hinman, The Printing and Proof-Reading of the First Folio of Shake-speare, ２vols.（Oxford : Clarendon Press,１９６３）, vol. I. p.２２７.
２． Ibid. p.２２７.
３． Ibid., p.９.
４． Ibid., p.５.
５． Ibid., p.１４３.
６．E.K. Chambers, William Shakespeare : A Study of Facts and Problems, ２vols.
（Oxford : Clarendon Press,１
９３０）.
７．Alice Walker, Textual Problems of the First Folio（Cambridge : Cambridge U.
P.,１
９５３）.
８．W.W. Greg, The Shakespeare First Folio .
９．J.K. Walton, The Quarto Copy for the First Folio of Shakespeare（Dublin,
１９７１）.
１０．Stanley Wells and Gary Taylor, William Shakespeare : A Textual Companion（Oxford : Oxford U.P.,１９８７）.
１１．Richard Proudfoot, Shakespeare Survey（１９７２）.
１２．Gary Taylor, The Folio Copy for Hamlet , King Lear , and Othello ,speare Quarterly（１９８３）.
１３．Honigmann, Texts, p.１.
１４．McMillin, Quarto, p.２.
１５．Honigmann, Texts, p.１４６.
―１００―

Shake-

１６．McMillin, Quarto, p.４４.
１７．E.K. Chambers, Elizabethan Stage, vol. VI. pp.３３８-３９.

Othello , Quarto１, Reconsidered, PMLA ４７（１９３２）,

１８．Kenneth W. Cameron,
６７１-８３.

１９．cited in McMillin, Quarto, p.１６.

CHAPTER TEN
１．Laurie E. Maguire, Shakespearean Suspect Texts（Cambridge : Cambridge U.P.,
１９９６）, pp.２２-２６.
２． Ibid., p.１８.
３．Paul Werstine, Narratives About Printed Shakespeare Texts :and Bad Quartos,

Foul Papers

Shakespeare Quarterly（１９９０）, p.８１.

４．Werstine, Plays in Manuscript, in A New History , p.４８１.
５． Ibid., pp.４８１-９５.
６．Collected in the Library, ４th ser.,６（１９２６）: １４８-５６.
７．Werstine, Plays., p.４８１.
８． Ibid., pp.４８８-８９.
９．G.E. Bentley, The Jacobean and Caroline Stage, ７vols.（Oxford : Clarendon
Press, １９４１）, vol. I., p.９０; Knight explained that ...the booke where by it was
first Acted from is lost and this hath beene transcrib’d from the fowle papers of
the Authors wch were found.
１０．W.W. Greg, The Editorial Problem in Shakespeare（Oxford : Oxford U.P.,
１９３１）, p.３１.
１１． Ibid., p.３２.
１２．Werstine, Plays, p.４８１.
１３．Giorgio Melchiori, The Continuing Importance of New Bibliography, in In

Arden : Editing Shakespeare, eds. Ann Thompson and Gordon McMullan（London : Thompson,２００３）, pp.１７-３０; p.２
１.
―１０１―

１４． Ibid., p.２１.
１５．Werstine, Plays, p.４９２.
１６． Ibid., pp.４９２-９３.
１７．Arthur Hammond, The Noisy Commas : Searching for the Signal in Renaissance Dramatic Texts, in The Crisis in Editing, ed. Randall M. Leod（NewYork : AMS Press,１９９４）, pp.２
０３-４９; p.２
２０.
１８．Gary Taylor, Reinventing Shakespeare, in Shakespeare : The Critical Complex,
ed. Stephen Orgel（New York : Garland Publishing,１９９９）, p.１２４.

―１０２―

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Arber, Edward, ed. A Transcript of the Registers of the Company of Stationers of

London ;１５５４ -１６４０ A.D. ５vols. London : n.p., １８７５-７９; Birmingham : n.p.,
１８９４.
Barroll, J. Leeds. Politics, Plague, and Shakespeare’s Theater. Ithaca : Cornell University Press,１
９９１.
Bartlett, Henrietta C., and Alfred W. Pollard. A Census of Shakespeare’s Plays in

Quarto,１５９４-１７０９. ２d ed., rev. New Haven : Yale University Press,１９３９.
Beaumont, Francis, and John Fletcher. The Works of Francis Beaumont and John

Fletcher. Edited by Arnold Glover and A.R. Waller. １０vols. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press,１
９０５-１２.
Bennett, H.S. English Books and Readers, １
５５８ to １６０３: Being a Study in the His-

tory of the Book Trade in the Reign of Elizabeth I. Cambridge : Cambridge
University Press,１９６５.
Bentley, Gerald Eades. The Jacobean and Caroline Stage. ７vols. Oxford : Clarendon
Press,１９４１-６８.
――. The Profession of Dramatist in Shakespeare’s Time, １５９０-１６４２. Princeton :Princeton University Press,１
９７１.
――. The Profession of Player in Shakespeare’s Time, １
５９０-１６４２. Princeton : ;Princeton University Press,１
９８４.
Birrell, T.A. Reading as Pastime : The Place of Light Literature in Some Gentlemen’s Libraries of the Seventeenth Century. In Robin Myers and Michael Harris, eds., Property of a Gentleman : The Formation, Organisation and Dispersalof the Private Library, １６２０-１９２０, １１３-３１. Winchester : St. Paul’s Bibliographies,１
９９１.
Blayney, Peter W.M. The First Folio of Shakespeare. Washington, D.C. : Folger Li―１０３―

brary Publications,１
９９１.
――. The Texts of King Lear and Their Origins. Vol. １, Nicholas Okes and theFirst Quarto. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press,１９８２.
――. The Publication of Playbooks. In John D. Cox and David Scott Kastan, eds.,

A New History of Early English Drama. New York : Columbia University
Press,１９９７.
Boffey, Julia. Manuscripts of English Courtly Love Lyrics in the Later Middle

Ages., Manuscript Studies１. Woodbridge, Suffolk : D.S. Brewer,１９８５.
Bolgar, R.R. The Classical Heritage and Its Beneficiaries from the Carolingian Ageto the End of the Renaissance. １９５４; reprint, New York : Harper & Row,
１９６４.
Brooks, Douglas A. From Playhouse to Printing House. Cambridge : Cambridge
University Press,２０００.
Brown, Cedric C. and Arthur F. Marotti. Texts and Cultural Change in Early Mod-ern England. London : McMillan,１９９７.
Burt, Richard. Licensed by Authority : Ben Jonson and the Discourses of Censorship.
Ithaca : Cornell University Press,１９９３.
Cameron, Kenneth W.

Othello, Quarto１, Reconsidered. PMLA ４７,１９３２.

Chambers, E.K. The Elizabethan Stage. ４vols. Oxford : Clarendon Press,１９２３.
――. William Shakespeare : A Study of Facts and Problems. ２vols. Oxford :Clarendon Press,１
９３０.
Chartier, Roger. The Order of Books : Readers, Authors, and Libraries in Europe Be-

tween the Fourteenth and Eighteenth Centuries. Translated by Lydia G. Cochrane. Stanford : Stanford University Press,１
９９４.
Clare, Janet. Art Made Tongue-Tied by Authority: Elizabethan and Jacobean Dra-

matic Censorship. Manchester : Manchester University Press,１９９０.
Clegg, Cyndia Susan. Press Censorship in Elizabethan England. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press,１
９９７.
―１０４―

Corbett, Margery and R.W. Lightbown. The Comely Frontispiece : The Emblematic

Title-page in England１５５０-１６６０. London : Routledge & Kegan Paul,１９７９.
Cressey, David. Literacy and the Social Order : Reading and Writing in Tudor andStuart England. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press,１９８０.
Cummings, Laurence A. John Finet’s Miscellany. Washington University, PhD,
１９６０.
Daniel, Samuel. Poems and A Defense of Ryme. Edited by Arthur Colby Spragne.
Chicago : University of Chicago Press,１
９３０.
Doughtie, Edward. Liber Lilliati : Elizabethan Verse and Song, Bodleian MS Rawlinson Poetry１
４８. London : Associated University Press,１
９８５.
de Grazia, Margreta. Shakespeare Verbatim : The Reproduction of Authenticity andthe１７９０Apparatus. Oxford : Oxford University Press,１９９１.
de Grazia, Margreta, Maureen Quilligan, and Peter Stallybrass, eds. Subject and Ob-

ject in Renaissance Culture. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press,１９９６.
de Grazia, Margreta, and Stanley Wells, eds. The Cambridge Companion to Shake-speare. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press,２００１.
Dutton, Richard. Mastering the Revels : The Regulation and Censorship of English

Renaissance Drama. London : Macmillan,１９９１.
――. Licensing, Censorship and Authorship in Early Modern England. Hampshire :Palgrave,２０００.
Erne, Lukas. Shakespeare as Literary Dramatist. Cambridge : Cambridge University
Press,２００３.
Ezell, Margaret J. The Patriarch’s Wife : Literary Evidence and the History of the

Family. Chapell Hill : University of North Carolina Press,１９８７.
Girouard, Mark. Life in the English Country House. New Haven : Yale University
Press,１
９７８.
Greg, W.W. A Bibliography of the English Printed Drama to the Restoration. ４vols.
London : Bibliographical Society,１９３９-５９. Reprint,１
９６２.
―１０５―

――. Dramatic Documents from the Elizabethan Playhouses : Stage Plots, Actors’Parts, Prompt Books. ２vols. Oxford : Clarendon Press,１９３１.
――. The Editorial Problem in Shakespeare. Oxford : Oxford University Press,
１９３１.
――. Entrance, Licence, and Publication.

The Library, ４th ser., ２５（１９４４-１９４５）:

１-２２.
――. Prompt Copies, Private Transcripts, and the Playhouse Scrivener.

The Li-thbrary, ４ ser.,６（１９２６）:１４８-５６.
――. The Shakespeare First Folio : Its Bibliographical and Textual History. Oxford : Clarendon Press,１
９５５.
――, ed.

Bonduca by John Fletcher. Reprint, London : Malone Society,１９５１.

Greg, W.W. and E. Boswell, eds. Records of the Court of the Stationers’ Company,

１５７６to１６０２, from Register B. London : Bibliographical Society,１９３０.
Grossard, Alexander B, ed. The Complete Works of John Davies of Herford. ２vols.
London : Privately Printed,１８７５-７７, rpt. New York : AMS Press,１
９６７.
Gurr, Andrew. Maximal and Minimal Texts : Shakespeare v. the Globe. Shakespeare

Survey ５２（１９９９）:６８-８７.
Hackel, Heidi Brayman,

Rowme

of Its Own : Printed Drama in Early Libraries.

In A New History of Early English Drama, １１３-３０.
――.

The Great Variety of Readers and early Modern Reading Practices. In A

Companion to Shakespeare, pp.１３９-５７.
Halasz, Alexandra. The Marketplace of Print. Cambridge : Cambridge University
Press,１９９７.
Hammond, Anthony. The Noisy Comma : Searching fort the Signal in RenaissanceDramatic Texts. In Crisis in Editing : Texts of the English Renaissance. Randy
McLeod, ed. New York : AMS Press,１９９４.
Harbage, Alfred. Annals of English Drama, ９７５-１７００: An Analytical Record of All

Plays, Extant or Lost, Chronologically Arranged and Indexed by Authors, Ti―１０６―

tles, Dramatic Companies. Philadelphia : University of Pennsylvania Press,
１９４０. ２d ed., rev. by Schoenbaum. London : Methuen, １
９６４. ３d ed., rev. by
Sylvia Stoler Wagonheim. London and New York : Routledge,１９８９.
Hart, E.F. The Answer-Poems of the Early Seventeenth Century.

RES , n.s. ７,（１９５６）:１９-２９.
Harvey, Elizabeth D. and Katharine Eisaman Maus, eds. Soliciting Interpretation :Literary Theory and Seventeenth-Century English Poetry. Chicago : Universityof Chicago Press,１
９９０.
Hattaway, Michael, ed. A Companion to English Renaissance Literature and Culture.
Oxford : Blackwell,２０００.
Heltzel, Virgil B. The Dedication of Tudor and Stuart Plays. In Wiener Beitrage

zur Englischen Philologie, ６５（１９５７）:７４-８６.
Henslowe, Philip. Henslowe’s Diary. Edited by R.A. Foakes and R.T. Rickert.
Cambridge : Cambridge University Press,１
９６１.
Heywood, Thomas. An Apology for Actors（１６１２）with A Refutation of the Apology for Actors（１６１５）. Edited by Richard H. Perkinson. New York : Scholars’Facsimiles and Reprints,１
９４１.
Hinman, Charlton, ed. The Norton Facsimile : The First Folio of Shakespeare. New
York : Norton,１９６８.
――. The Printing and Proof-Reading of the First Folio of Shakespeare. ２vols. Oxford : Clarendon Press,１
９６３.
Honigmann, E.A.J. The Stability of Shakespeare’s Text. London : Arnold,１
９６５.
――. The Texts of Othello and Shakespearean Revision. London : Routledge,
１９９６.
Jackson, William A., ed. Records of the Court of the Stationers’ Company, １
６０２ to１６４０. London : Bibliographical Society,１９５７.
Jayne, Sears. Library Catalogues of the English Renaissance. Berkeley : Universityof California Press,１
９５６.
―１０７―

Johnson, Francis R. Notes on English Retail Book-prices,１
５５０-１６４０. The Library,
５th ser.,５（１９５０-５１）:８３-１１２.
Jonson, Ben. Ben Jonson. Edited by C.H. Herford, Percy Simpson, and Evelyn
Simpson.１
１vols. Oxford : Clarendon Press,１９２５-５２.
Kastan, David Scott, ed. A Companion to Shakespeare. Oxford : Blackwell,１
９９９.
――. Shakespeare and the Book. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press,２００１.
Kastan, David Scott and Peter Stallybrass, ed. Staging the Renaissance : Reinterpreta-

tions of Elizabethan and Jacobean Drama. New York : Routledge,１９９１.
Kerrigan, John. The editor as reader : constructing Renaissance texts. In James Raven, Helen Small, and Naomi Tadmor, ed., The Practice and Representation of

Reading in England. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press,１９９６.
Kiessling, Nicolas K. The Library of Robert Burton. Oxford : Oxford Bibliographical Society,１９８８.
Kinney, Arthur F. ed. A Companion to Renaissance Drama. Oxford : Blackwell,
２００２.
Kirschbaum, Leo. Shakespeare and the Stationers. Columbus : Ohio State University
Press,１９５５.

５９４-１６１３. FayetKnutson, Roslyn L. The Repertory of Shakespeare’s Company, １teville : University of Arkansas Press,１
９９１.
Kyd, Thomas. The Spanish Tragedy. Edited by Philip Edwards. Cambridge : Harvard University Press,１９５９.
Leedham-Green, E.S. Books in Cambridge Inventories : Book-Lists from Vice-

Chancellor’s Court Probate Inventories in the Tudor and Stuart Periods. ２vols.
Cambridge : Cambridge University Press,１
９８６.
Lennam, T.N.S. Sir Edward Dering’s Collection of Playbooks, １
６１９-１６２４.

Shake-

speare Quarterly, １６（１９６５）:１４５-５３.
Lesser, Zachary. Walter Burre’s Knight of the Burning Pestle .

Renaissance.
―１０８―

English Literary

Loewenstein, Joseph. The Script in the Marketplace.

Representations １２（１９８５）:

１０１-１４.
Logan, Marie-Rose and Peter L. Rudnytsky, ed. Contending Kingdoms : Historical,

Psychological, and Feminist Approaches to the Literature of Sixteenth-Century
England and France. Detroit : Wayne State University Press,１９９１.
Love, Harold. Scribal Publications in Seventeenth-Century England.

Oxford :Clarendon Press,１９９３.
Maguire, Laurie E. Shakespearean Suspect Texts : The Bad Quartos and their Con-texts. Cambridge. Cambridge University Press,１９９６.
Marcus, Leah S. Unediting the Renaissance : Shakespeare, Marlowe, Milton. London : Routledge,１
９９６.
Marlowe, Christopher. The Complete Works of Christopher Marlowe. Edited byFredson Bowers.２vols. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press,１
９８１.
Marotti, Arthur F. Manuscript, Print, and the English Renaissance Lyric. Ithaca :Cornell University Press,１
９９５.
――. John Donne : Coterie Poet. Madison : University of Wisconsin Press,１
９８６.
――. The Transmission of Lyric Poetry and the Institutionalizing of Literature in
the English Renaissance. In Contending Kingdom.
Masten, Jeffrey. Textual Intercourse : Collaboration, Authorship, and Sexualities in

Renaissance Drama. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press,１９９７.
McGann, Jerome J. Critique of Modern Textual Criticism. Chicago : University of
Chicago Press,１
９８３.
McMillin, Scott. The Elizabethan Theatre and The Book of Sir Thomas More.

Ith-aca : Cornell University Press,１９８７.
――, ed. The First Quarto of Othello. The New Cambridge Shakespeare : the Early

Quartos. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press,２００１.
Melchiori, Giorgio. The Continuing Importance of New Bibliography. In In Arden.
Montrose, Louis. Spenser’s Domestic Domain : Poetry, Property, and the early Mod―１０９―ern Subject. In Subject and Object in Renaissance Culture.
Mowat, Barbara A. Constructing the Author. In Elizabethan Theatre.
――. The Reproduction of Shakespeare’s Texts. In The Cambridge Companion to

Shakespeare.
Mullaney, Steven. The Place of the Stage : License, Play, and Power in Renaissance

England. Chicago : University of Chicago Press,１９８８.
Murphy, Andrew, ed. The Renaissance Text : Theory, editing, textuality. Manchester : Manchester University Press,２０００.
――. Shakespeare in Print : A History and Chronology of Shakespeare Publishing.
Cambridge : Cambridge University Press,２００３.
Myers, Robin, and Michael Harris, eds. Property of a Gentleman : The Formation,

Organisation, and Dispersal of the Private Library, １６２０-１９２０. Winchester : St.
Paul’s Bibliographies,１
９９１.
Orgel, Stephen. What Is a Text? In Staging the Renaissance.
Parker, R.B. and S.P. Zitner, ed. Elizabethan Theatre : Essays in Honor of S.

Schoenbaum. Newark : University of Delaware Press,１９９６.
Patterson, Annabel. Censorship and Interpretation : The Conditions of Reading andWriting in Early Modern England. Madison : University of Wisconsin Press,
１９８４.
Philip, Ian. The Bodleian Library in the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries. Lyell

Lectures, Oxford,１９８０-８１. Oxford : Clarendon Press,１９８３.
Pollard, Alfred W. Shakespeare Folios and Quartos : A Study in the Bibliography of

Shakespeare’s Plays,１５９４-１６８５. London : Methuen,１９０９.
Pollard, Graham. The Early Constitution of the Stationers’ Company. The Library,
４th ser.,１８（１９３７-１９３８）:２３５-６０.
Prynne William. Histrio-Mastix. The Players Scourge, or, Actors Tragaedie. London,１
６３３.
Puttenham, George. The Arte of English Poesie. １５８９; facsimile, Menston, U.K. :―１１０―

Scolar Press,１９６８.
Rhodes, Neil and Jonathan Sawday, The Renaissance Computer : Knowledge Tech-

nology in the First Age of Print. London : Routledge,２００１.
Rose, Mark. Authors and Owners : The Invention of Copyright. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press,１
９９３.
Saunders, J.W. The Profession of English Letters. London : Routledgte and Kegan
Paul,１９６４.
――. The Stigma of Print : A Note on the Social Bases of Tudor Poetry. Essays in

Criticism １（１９５１）:１３９-６４.
Shakespeare, William. The New Cambridge Shakespeare. Edited by John Dover
Wilson and Arthur Quiller-Couch. ４
２vols. Cambridge : Cambridge University
Press,１９２１-６６.
――. The Norton Facsimile : The First Folio of Shakespeare. Edited by Charlton
Hinman. New York : Norton,１９６８.
――. The Norton Shakespeare（based on the Oxford edition）. ４vols. Edited by
Stephen Greenblatt, et. Al. New York : W.W. Norton & Company,１
９９７.
――. Othello（the first Arden edition）. Edited by H.C. Hart. London : Methuen,
１９０３.
――. Othello（the second Arden edition）. Edited by M.R. Ridley. London : Methuen,１
９５８.
――. Othello（the third Arden edition）Edited by E.A.J. Honigmann. London : Methuen,１
９９６.
――. Othello : The New Variorum Edition. Edited by Horace Howard Furness.
New York : Dover Publications, INC.,２
０００.
――. The Riverside Shakespeare. Edited by G. Blakemore Evans. Boston : Houghton Mifflin,１
９７４.
――. William Shakespeare : The Complete Works. Edited by Gary Taylor andStanley Wells. Oxford : Clarendon Press,１
９８６.
―１１１―

Sisson, C.J. The Laws of Elizabethan Copyright : The Stationers’ View.

The Li-brary, ５th ser.,１５（１９６０）:８-２０.
Slack, Paul. The Impact of Plague in Tudor and Stuart England : A Cultural Poetics.
Chicago : University of Chicago Press,１
９９１.
Spufford, Margaret. Small Books and Pleasant Histories : Popular Fiction and Its

Readership in Seventeenth-Century England. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press,１
９８１.
Streitberger, W.R. Court Revels, １４８５-１５５９. Toronto : University of Toronto Press,
１９９４.
――. Edmond Tyllney, Master of the Revels and Censor of Plays : A Descriptive In-

dex to His Diplomatic Manual on Europe. New York : AMS Press,１９８６.
On Edmond Tyllney’s Biography.

Review of English Studies, n.s., ２９（１９７８）:

１１-３５.
――, ed. Jacobean and Caroline Revels Accounts, １６０３-１６４２. Collections, vol. １
３.
London : Malone Society,１
９８６.
Taylor, Frank. The Books and Manuscripts of Scipiole Squyer, Deputy Chamberlainof the Exchequer （１６２０-５９）. Bulletin of the John Rylands Library, ２５（１９４１）:１３７-６４.
Taylor, Gary. The Folio Copy for Hamlet, King Lear, and Othello .

Shakespeare

Quarterly（１９８３）.
――. Reinventing Shakespeare. In Shakespeare : The Critical Complex.
Taylor, Gary, and Michael Warren, eds. The Division of the Kingdoms : Shake-speare’s Two Versions of King Lear.

Oxford : Clarendon Press,１
９８３.

Wall, Wendy. The Imprint of Gender : Authorship and Publication in the English

Renaissance. Ithaca : Cornell University Press,１９９３.
Watt, Tessa. Cheap Print and Popular Piety, １５５０-１６４０. Cambridge : Cambridge
University Press,１９９１.
Webster, John. The Complete Works. Edited by F.L. Lucas. ４vols. London : Chatto―１１２―

& Windus,１
９２７.
Wells, Stanley, and Gary Taylor, with John Jowett and William Montgomery. Wil-

liam Shakespeare : A Textual Companion. Oxford : Clarendon Press,１９８８.
Walker, Alice. Textual Problems of the First Folio. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press,１
９５３.
Walton, J.K. The Quarto Copy for the First Folio of Shakespeare. Dublin,１９７１.
Werstine, Paul. McKerrow’s Suggestion and Twentieth-Century Shakespeare Textual Criticism.

Renaissance Drama １９（１９８８）:１４９-７３.

――. Narratives About Printed Shakespeare Texts : Foul Papers and Bad Quartos.

Shakespeare Quarterly ４１（１９９０）:６５-８６.

――. Plays in Manuscript. In A New History of Early English Drama, pp.４８１-９８.
Wheeler, G.W., ed. Letters of Sir Thomas Bodley to Thomas James, First Keeper ofthe Bodleian Library. Oxford : Clarendon Press,１９２６.
Wickham, Glynne. Early English Stages,１３００-１６６０. ３vols. London : Routledge andKegan Paul,１
９５９-８１.
Willoughby, Edwin Elliott. The Printing of the First Folio. Oxford : Oxford University Press for the Bibliographical Society,１
９３２.
――. A Printer of Shakespeare : The Books and Times of William Jaggard. London : Allan & Co.,１
９３４.
Woudhuysen, H.R. Sir Philip Sidney and the Circulation of Manuscripts, １
５５８-１６４０.
Oxford : Clarendon Press,１
９９６.

―１１３―

The Publication of the First Quarto of Othello : synopsis

Yoshiko Ono

Almost all English Books printed before eighteenth century vary to some extent
from copy to copy. Shakespeare’s first Folio published in １６２３ best illustrates theunsettled nature of a printed text. The printing-house used to correct proof during thecourse of printing, and then assemble corrected and uncorrected sheets indiscriminately. Owing to this printing-house practice, it is highly probable that no two copies of a sixteenth century book could be identical.
The idea of a book embodying the final, perfected text was not a Renaissanceone. Historical study of manuscript and print culture reveals the unstable nature of
the text construction itself. The manuscript culture fostered communal authorship, aturning back and forth of scripted messages between writers. In a system of manuscript circulation of literature, individual text was permeable, editorially open toamendments. In the case of play texts, they designed to change as the conditions of
performance change. It was the task of the print shop to customize a play so as tomake it readable. From its very first appearance as text the play had been edited,
mediated by agents other than the author.
This study will relocate the production history of the first quarto of Othello in thecomplex social process of the text’s production. The publisher, censorship, publication, book trade, copyright, authorship, collaboration, collection, and readership will
be examined as the social and material circumstances in which the publication of

Othello was enabled. The final goal is to see how the quarto had been published in
the network of the manuscript and print culture in the early modern England.

―１１４―この「研究叢書」は、所員の推進する学際的共同研究および個人研究の成果を継続的に刊行することにより、もって、新たな文化の創造と学術の進歩に寄与しようとするものである。

〈著者紹介〉
お

の

よし

こ

小

野

良

子（本学文学部教授）

関西学院大学大学院博士課程（英文学専攻）単位取得退学（文学修士）。ロンドン大学大学院ゴールドスミスカレ
ッジ修士課程（英文学専攻）留学（１
９
９
０
‐
９
１年）
。

〔著書および主要論文〕『マーストンの諷刺家たち』（単著、近代文芸社、１
９
９
８年）
、
『マーストンのTragical Satire』（日本英文学会第９回新人賞佳作受賞、『英文学研究』収、日本英文学会、１
９
８
６年）
、
『イリュージョンの力』（『英米文学』−笹山隆教授退官記
念論文集収、
１９９９年）
Power of Illusion : The Politics of Jonsonian Masgue Under the Reign of James （単著、I
桃山学院
大学総合研究所、１９９９年）など。

オセロQ１の出版
研究叢書２５
２００７年３月３１日

発行

著 者

小

野

良

子

発行者

桃山学院大学総合研究所

［５
９
４
‐
１
１
９
８］ 大阪府和泉市まなび野１
‐
１
TEL（０
７
２
５）
５
４
‐
３
１
３
１
（代）

東洋紙業高速印刷
［５
５
６
‐
０
０
２
９］ 大阪市浪速区芦原２
‐
５
‐
５
６
TEL（０
６）
６
５
６
７
‐
０
５
１
１

桃山学院大学総合研究所研究叢書
No

著

者

書

１
２

望月和彦

年金と財政投融資−「ゴルディアスの結び目」は断てるか−

２
０
０
０．
９

１
３

出原博明

日本の伝統文化としての俳句と英米の詩

２
０
０
１．
３

１
４

蕗谷硯児

先進国金融危機の様相

２
０
０
１．
３

１
５

金城・谷本・日下
藤森・滝澤 共著

文学における差別

２
０
０
１．
３

１
６

中田信正

法人税法における連結納税制度の課題

２
０
０
２．
３

１
７

小林信彦

激怒したタマの報復−日本文化圏の因果応報−

２
０
０
２．
１
２

１
８

津田和夫

現代銀行論研究序説−市場経済成熟化へ向けた本邦金融構造改革−

２
０
０
３．
３

１
９

徐 龍 龍

貸借対照表論の生成発展に関する研究

２
０
０
３．
３

２
０

岸本・北川・中村
原田・宮本 共著

芸術・芸能の社会的基盤

２
０
０
５．
３

２
１

松村昌廣

激動する世界、翻弄される日本

２
０
０
５．
９

２
２

都竹武年雄 述小長谷・原山・Philip 編

善隣協会の日々

２
０
０
６．
３

２
３

小林信彦

オホハラヘと『藥師經』の関係−古來の儀式を改革する際に日本人が使った異文化文献−

２
０
０
６．
３

２
４

小林・清水・坂口
河合・中村・金光 共著

文献研究
−わが国１
９
８
０年以降の会計学−

２
０
０
７．
３

２
５

Yoshiko ONO

The Publication of the First Quarto of Othello

２
０
０
７．
３

!
!

名

出版年