Your browser is not supported. This might affect how the content is displayed.
The third volume of Jonson’s second folio of 1640-41, ‘F2(3)’, has a tangled publishing history. Competing publishers fought over the rights to the contents, which caused printing to be interrupted until the legal disputes were settled. The most important piece of evidence in this history is a one-sided deposition, a bill filed in Chancery by the eventual publisher of F2(3), Thomas Walkley, on 20 January 1641. (The bill itself gives the year as ‘1640’, but this reflects old-style dating, where the new year started on 25 March.) This bill falls in the middle of a dispute between Walkley and fellow publishers, Andrew Crooke and John Benson. Despite the obvious bias of the deposition, which advances only Walkley’s side of the story, and the absence of any surviving response from Crooke or Benson, it discloses some significant facts about the disposal of Jonson’s manuscripts at his death and their subsequent printing. It is therefore worth quoting in its entirety:
xx. Januarij. 1640.
PindarTo the right honoble Sr Edward Littleton Kt Lord keeper of the greate seale of England
Humbly complayning sheweth vnto yr good lordshipp yor Daylie Orator Thomas Walkeley Cittizen & stationer of London.
That whereas seuerall of the writings and workes of Beniamin Johnson late deceased and not before printed were some shorte tyme before his decease presented vnto & giuen by the said Beniamin to Sr Kenelme Digby to dispose thereof at his will and pleasure.
To whose care & trust the said Beniamin left the publishing and printing of them and delivered him true & perfect Copies for his better & more effectual dooing thereof,
And the said Beniamin shortly after dyeing, the said Sr Kenelme Digbye in pursuance of the said truste reposed in him deliuered the same Copies to yor Orator to haue them published and printed according to the intencon of the said Beniamin Johnson freely bestowing the benefit of the printing thereof on yor Orator,
Wherevpon yor Orator having procured licence for the printing thereof and having to his great charge caused them to be printed before such tyme as yor Orator had the same from the printing house or that they were fully perfected, one John Benson & Andrew Crooke having notice that yor Orator was in hand wth the printing of the same bookes and that there was like to bee some profitt made thereby
They the said Benson & Crooke having obtayned by some casuall or other indirect meanes false & imperfect Copies of the same works did make an Entry in the Hall of the Company of Stationers of London in their owne name for the printing & publishing of the same workes, the Company not knowing of yor Oratorres interest therein or of yor Oratorres printing thereof,
wch vndue and irregular proceeding of them the said Benson & Crooke comming accidentally to the knowledge of your Orator yor Orator did thervpon make complaynt thereof to one of his Mates Secretaries of State who having heard & vnderstood the thrueth of the proceeding did graunt a warrant, thereby prohibiting the sayd Benson & Crooke from further printing or publishing the same workes or any of them.
But nowe soe it is may it please yor good lordshipp that one John Parker a stationer also of London pretending the said Benson to be greatly indebted to him and finding the name of the said Benson to be entred in the hall of the stationers for the printing & publishing of the said workes and knowing that diverse of the said bookes wch yor Orator had at his owne proper charge caused to be printed were accordingly printed and ready for to be published, And knowing also where they were, the said Parker did by some private practice or agreemt wth them the said Benson & Crooke cause the said bookes wch yor Orator had soe caused to be printed to be attached in London as the wares of him the said Benson at the suite of him the said Parker for a pretended debt supposed to be owing to him the said Parker by the said Benson and proceeding therevpon in the Guildhall London obteyned a Judgemt thervpon, yor Orator being noe way privy thereto or knowing thereof
Which said wares soe attached and for wch the said Parker had obtayned Judgemt in maner as aforesaid are the proper goodes and wares of yor Orator onely and are of the value of three hundred poundes at the least,
Soe as now yor Orator having been at aboue two hundred poundes charge in & concerning the printing the same bookes, they are detayned from yor Orator by him, by whom the same were printed for yor Oratores vse in respect of the said Attachment & Judgemt, yor Orator being noe way indebted to the said Confederates or any of them, And the said Benson & C<r>ooke doe giue out that they will in the meane tyme proceed wth the printing and publishing their Copies whereby yor Orator is like to be greatly dampnifyed contrary to all equity & good Conscience.
In tender Consideracon whereof, and for that yor Orator hath noe way to helpe himselfe against the said Judgemt soe surreptuously obtayned without yor honores privity as aforesaid nor to be releiued in the prmisses but by yor lordshipps ayd in this honoble Courte, yor Oratores witnesses who should proue the prmisses living remotely in places vnknowne to yor Orator
May it therefore please yor lordshipp, the prmisses considered to graunt to yor Orator his Maties most gracious processe of Subpena to be directed to the said John Benson Andrew Cooke & John Parker Comanding them & every of them at a certayne day and vnder certayne paine therein to be limited personally to be & appeare before yo±r± lordshipp in his Mates high Court of Chancery then & there to answere the prmisses
And further to stand to and abide such order sentence & Judgemt therein as shalbe agreable to equity and good conscience
And yor Orator shall daylie pray &c.
John Vernon
In the light of this evidence, and a lack of any statements to the contrary, some facts can be deduced:
Walkley is somewhat disingenuous in his further claims, especially that he ‘procured licence’ for the materials. In fact he did not enter the works in the Stationers’ Register, which would be the only way fully to protect his rights to the texts. Possibly he thought that he was in possession of the sole copies of Jonson’s papers; possibly he wished to save himself the entry fees for so many individual titles, including fragmentary works like Mortimer. What Walkeley identifies as the company’s ‘not knowing’ of his interests, however, is clearly an attempt to cover his negligence, which, if exposed, would probably have made his claims against Benson and Crooke especially difficult to uphold.
National Archives, Chancery Pleadings before 1714, Mitford, C8/90/28. Transcribed in full by H&S, 9.98-9; H&S identify Matthew Pindar as a Clerk of the Chancery and John Vernon as Thomas Walkley’s counsel. This bill was disovered by Frank Marcham, who rightly points out that ‘no single word of this or any other Chancery Bill can be believed without corroboration, especially if the reader is looking for literary facts’ (Marcham, 1931, 225).