Your browser is not supported. This might affect how the content is displayed.

Sejanus: Textual Essay

Tom Cain

The history of the early printing of Sejanus cannot be divorced from its interpretation. This is partly because, as will be seen, the typeface and layout of the first edition, the quarto of 1605 (Q), themselves make a highly significant statement, becoming in that edition part of the play’s ‘meaning’; and partly because the text of the play as it was printed, whether in Q or the 1616 folio version (F1) , differs from the play that was acted in 1603-4. Jonson seems unequivocal about this in his epistle To the Readers in Q:

Lastly, I would inform you that this book, in all numbers, is not the same with that which was acted on the public stage, wherein a second pen had good share; in place of which I have rather chosen to put weaker (and no doubt less pleasing) of mine own, than to defraud so happy a genius of his right by my loathed usurpation.

The extent of revision, however, apart from the addition of marginal notes and prefatory material, may not be quite as substantial as ‘good share’ suggests. ‘In all numbers’ is derived from Lat. omnibus numeris, ‘all parts’, ‘all details’ (cf. Pliny, librum omnibus numeris absolutum’, Epistolae, 9.38; Cicero, ‘omnibus suis numeris et partibus’, De natura deorum, 2.37). Jonson used Pliny’s phrase ‘absolute in all numbers’ to mean something like ‘perfect in every respect’ in the title to Und. 84 (of Kenelm Digby), in Epigr. 79 (of Lady Rutland), and in his letter to Cecil of November 1605; the use in Mercury Vindicated, 157-8, is very similar, while in Discoveries Sir Nicholas Bacon likewise ‘filled up all numbers’ (657; cf. also Dedication to Epigrams, 16 and New Inn, Epilogue, 6). Heminges and Condell use the phrase similarly to attest the accuracy of their text in the epistle to the Shakespeare first folio (1623), where the plays are ‘absolute in their numbers, as he conceived them’. It is therefore likely to mean here that the text of Q is not the same ‘in all details’ as that performed, and this implication that the second pen’s part was not very large is supported by two contemporary witnesses. One is ‘Ev.B’, (possibly Everard Buckworth) whose poem about the 1603 performance of Sejanus refers to ‘the author’ and ‘his grave and learned toil’ in the singular. This, however, was probably written up to two years later, and intended for the emphatically single-author publication of Q. The entry in the Stationers’ Register for 2 Nov. 1604 is less compromised. Stationers’ Register entries usually record the titles of the manuscripts actually submitted, and the copy licensed in this case was ‘a booke called the tragedie of Seianus written by Beniamin Iohnson’, rather than ‘SEIANUS his Fall’, the title under which Q was published. This suggests that the text that was approved in 1604 may have been closer to the 1603 version passed by Tilney, than to the one finally printed. If so, the ascription of authorship to Jonson alone is significant, the more so since the licenser, Zacharias Pasfield, was an ‘acquaintance’ of his, and was requested by him to act as a spiritual adviser over his ‘scruple of conscience’ as a recusant in 1606 (Life Records, 32). Pasfield, who had previously licensed Every Man In, Cynthia’s Revels, and Poetaster, would probably have known something of the origins of the fourth Jonson manuscript he read. Friendship may also have disposed him to be uncensorious in his assessment of the play.

The firm statement about the second pen may, therefore, be defensive, an attempt to distance the printed play from one which when performed had caused offence, and which was being prepared for the press at a period close to that in which Jonson and Chapman were in prison for their part in Eastward Ho!, printed in the same year by the same printer. But whatever allowance is made for deviousness on Jonson’s part, he is explicit enough about the editing out of a second author’s share to leave no serious doubt that the text we have does differ to some extent from that which was performed. The ‘second Pen’, inevitably identified as Shakespeare’s in the eighteenth century – ‘Shakespeare himself assisted Ben Jonson in his Sejanus, as it was originally written’ (Edmond Malone, Plays and Poems of Shakespeare, 1821, 1.356 , and cf. Whalley, 3.130 ) – is now usually assumed to have been that of George Chapman, who seems to refer to a collaboration (though not necessarily by him) in which ‘other fords mix[ed] with his modest course’ (In Sejanum, 38). There is, however, no firm evidence for Chapman having written any of the 1603 version. Both the identity of the collaborator and the extent of his contribution are beyond recovery, and lost with them is the play that was acted at the Globe and at Whitehall. (For a plausible defence of Shakespeare as the second pen, set by the company to make the play more stageable, see Barton (1984) , 93-4. Gifford’s (3.8) suggestion of Fletcher is unconvincing, mainly because his career as a dramatist had not started by 1603.)

Thus no editor can hope to reconstruct a text that takes the reader or director closer to the original stage version of Sejanus. The choice instead is between a text based on the self-consciously literary version which Jonson chose to publish in 1605, with its unique and copious marginal notes and its distinctive typefaces, and the revised version of that text which Stansby printed in 1616, with the notes omitted, and with type, layout, punctuation and spelling standardised to accord with the style of the other plays in the collected Works. In a new edition of Jonson’s complete works it is inevitable that a similar degree of standardisation will again be imposed on Jonson’s text. An edition of Sejanus based closely on F1 would, therefore, involve two degrees of standardisation, two further moves away from the copy Jonson gave to Eld in 1605, and from the literary product he then conceived. Since, as will be seen, the revision of Sejanus for F1 was less painstaking than most subsequent editors have assumed, there are few arguments for preferring it as copy-text. This edition is therefore based on the 1605 quarto, reproducing the distinctive features of that edition as far as possible within the confines of standardisation and modernising. The most obvious departures from the appearance of Eld’s version are the move of the marginalia to the foot of the page, and the loss of upper case type used as a visual sign of Roman formal discourse.

In taking this course I have followed the then unusual prioritising of Q first adopted in an extreme form by de Vocht (1935) , and proposed in a more measured way by Greg (1950-51) , 35 as ‘the natural course to pursue’ in a separate edition of Sejanus. This course was supported in theory by Bowers (1978) , 112-19 and Jowett (1991) , 264 and followed in practice in editions by Ayres (1990) and Kidnie (2000) . All other editors from 1640 on have followed F1, a course more understandable for Whalley , Gifford, and Herford and Simpson , all of whom were avowedly following the example of F1 in producing a ‘Complete Works’. The separate editions by Briggs , Bolton , and Barish were also, less defensibly, based on F1. De Vocht’s was a type-facsimile edition, but Ayres’s was a modern-spelling eclectic text based on Q. As such it preserved much, though not all, of the distinctive use of upper-case type, but incorporated translated versions of the marginalia in the commentary, thus obscuring their impact. As Jonson makes clear in his preface, his notes were not intended to be so user-friendly: ‘it was presupposed, none but the learned would take the pains to confer them’ (To the Readers, 24-5).

THE QUARTO OF 1605

When it appeared in 1605, Seianus his Fall was the fifth of Jonson’s plays to be printed, following Every Man Out (1600), Every Man In, Cynthia’s Revels (both 1601), and Poetaster (1602). It was entered in the Stationers’ Register on 2 November 1604, by Edward Blount (Arber, 1875-94 , 3.273; Greg, 1939-59 , 1.19). Blount did not have the play printed, possibly because it was still in the repertory of the King’s Men during 1604. Instead, on 6 August 1605, he ‘putt ou[er]’ his rights to the stationer Thomas Thorpe (Arber, 1875-94 , 3.297). Thorpe had it printed later that year (i.e. sometime before 25 March 1606) by George Eld. During 1605 Eld also printed Chapman’s All Fools for Thorpe, and three editions of Eastward Ho!, for William Aspley. Later he was to print Volpone (1607) and The Masque of Blackness (1608) for Thorpe, and in 1609 Shakespeare’s Troilus and Cressida and Sonnets, the latter again for Thorpe. Although during 1605 he printed or had a share in printing at least seventeen books, Eld was still a relatively new master. He had gained his freedom in 1600, and had only acquired his business in 1604, by marrying the widow of Richard Read, the printer of Cynthia’s Revels. The printing house which the widow Read brought Eld was in Fleet Lane, opposite the modern Old Bailey, at the unimaginative sign of the Printer’s Press, a site which was (possibly to Eld’s regret) only a short walk from Blackfriars, where Jonson was living in 1605 in the house of his patron, Esmé Stuart, Seigneur D’Aubigny (H&S , 11.576-7).

Eld is best known to bibliographers for his printing of Shakespeare’s Sonnets and his rather careless editions of Eastward Ho! and Troilus and Cressida. Sejanus has its share of errors, but overall it is a much more carefully finished product. The copy Jonson gave Eld was unprecedented for a vernacular play, with demands for detailed and copious marginalia (there are just over three hundred Latin notes), and passages within the main text that set out to reproduce Roman inscriptional style. Since Jonson had revised the playhouse version substantially, it was probably his own fair copy of the new version that he gave to Eld. In this his notes would have been inscribed as marginalia in their appropriate place, rather than on separate copy. A very good idea of the probable appearance of Jonson’s holograph can be gained from the presentation copy Jonson made around 1609 of The Masque of Queens (BL Royal MS 18A 45). Page 4, illustrated below, resembles Q’s K4v in the way the annotations embrace the short passages of text:

Illustration 1. The Masque of Queens (BL Royal MS 18A 45), p. 4

Illustration 1. The Masque of Queens (BL Royal MS 18A 45), p. 4

×

Eld may still, of course, have had his own copy made to enable him to cast off for setting by formes more accurately. In either case, his compositors would have been able to relate the notes to the blank verse relatively simply. This problem would anyway not have been new to them; though its design and layout was novel for a play (Poetaster, the first English play with marginal notes, has only seven, much shorter ones, in its quarto version), the technical demands were not unusual. Jonson and Eld had themselves been responsible for one important precedent: Eld had printed Part of the King’s Entertainment, a similarly annotated quarto by Jonson, the previous year. This not only had copious marginalia, but had included a page (D3) which, in large type, imitated the style of a Roman monumental inscription in a way that may have encouraged Jonson to transfer the device to Sejanus. Though it is attributed to V.[alentine] S.[immes] on the title-page, Eld is now thought to have printed all but the first two gatherings of this book, which also included A Panegyre, and the Particular Entertainment at Althorp (Lavin, 1970 , 335; STC, 14756). Illustration 2 shows pages D1v-D2 from the British Library copy of the Entertainment:

Illustration 2.

Illustration 2.

×

Just as the layout here prefigures that on Q K3v-K4, so does the inscription on D3 prefigure the use of type on M1:

Illustration 3.

Illustration 3.

×

Such Roman inscriptions were in vogue in Jonson’s circle: in 1634 Inigo Jones recycled a Roman monument for George Chapman’s memorial which is still in its neglected place in St Giles-in-the-Fields:

Illustration 4. Chapman memorial stone, St. Giles-in-the-Fields

Illustration 4. Chapman memorial stone, St. Giles-in-the-Fields

×

Eld also collaborated with Simmes on another 1604 production with a complex layout, The Supplication of Certain Mass-Priests (STC 14429.5). This, attributed to Matthew Sutcliffe, but associated with James I, subjected the original ‘supplication’ to thorough and hostile marginal commentary which demanded a sophisticated layout similar to the masques (see Illustration 5 below).

Illustration 5. ?Matthew Sutcliffe, The Supplication of Certain Mass-Priests, E2v-E3

Illustration 5. ?Matthew Sutcliffe, The Supplication of Certain Mass-Priests, E2v-E3

×

Eld was therefore experienced in meeting the demands made by Jonson in Sejanus, though neither he nor any other printer had printed an English play in this way. Nor were they ever to do so again. Catiline, where one might expect the learned annotation to be repeated, is characterised by a neo-classical austerity in this respect, and such contemporary closet dramas as Kyd’s Cornelia, Greville’s Mustapha, or William Alexander’s classical tragedies, though they often follow classical usage in having massed entries at the head of each act, do not have this learned apparatus. Editions of classical drama, on the other hand, usually did have such marginal notes, as did many early modern editions of non-dramatic classical texts. Jonson’s acquaintance John Bond, for example, produced an influential edition of Horace in 1606 (STC 13790a), in which the text weaves its way through notes that are usually longer than the poems. The only English contemporary annotated dramatic text I have discovered other than Sejanus is a special case: this is Richard Bernard’s parallel text Terence in English (Cambridge, 1598, STC 23890), in which, significantly, Bernard annotates only the Latin pages. In giving copious marginalia to Sejanus, Jonson was claiming the status of classical Latin drama for his vernacular play, and thus also proclaiming its literary rather than theatrical pedigree. This was a play which belonged in the study, not on the stage.

Printing history

Seianus his fall. VVritten by Ben: Ionson. At London: Printed by G. Elld, for Thomas Thorpe, 1605 (STC14782; cf. Greg, 1939, 1.216 (a)) has 108 pages, collated ¶4, A-M4, N2 (¶1v and N2v being blank). A variant has ‘Ellde’ on the title page, corrected to ‘Elld’, suggesting that forme ¶ outer may have been set by a compositor new to Eld’s printing house:

Illustration 6. Variant title-pages of Q.

Illustration 6. Variant title-pages of Q.

×

It will be argued that, as was customary, this first quire and quire A were the last to be printed. The order of printing is made uncertain by the facts that Eld is known to have had two presses (Arber, 1875-94 , 3.699), that evidence from type recurrence is slight, and that headlines are very plain, consisting simply of the running title ‘seianvs.’ with no rules or ornaments. This running title first appears on B1v, and then on every page until the last, N2. Despite this austerity, spacing and the slight variants in the relatively uniform type used for the running titles can be used reliably to identify the skeleton formes used from sig. B onwards. They show that Q was basically a ‘two-skeleton’ job, though the headlines in the second skeleton forme were re-arranged twice during printing.

Although it has been argued that Eld used both his presses to print The Revenger’s Tragedy and Your Five Gallants in 1608 (Price, 1960 , 1953 ), and the Sonnets in 1609 (Jackson, 1975 ), he used only one to print A Trick to Catch the Old One, also in 1608 (Price, 1967 ), and seems to have done the same with Sejanus, the second press probably being used for proofs (cf. Blayney, 1982 , 41). Printing began with forme B outer. While this was being printed, compositors were setting C outer, which has slightly different running titles. The first skeleton, with one new running title added in place of the larger half title ‘SEIANVS.’ with which the play text begins on B1, was next used for B inner, while the second skeleton, from C outer, was used for C inner. The first skeleton, that used for B, was next used for D outer and inner, while the second, from C, was used for both formes of E. After E was printed the second skeleton was rearranged, the running titles being placed in different positions. The mode of alternating the skeleton formes also changed, with the first skeleton being used for both F and G inner, and the new arrangement of the second for F and G outer. This may be connected with the appearance of compositor C (see below), whose first job seems to have been the setting of F1. Or it may be that F outer was held up because Jonson had not yet provided the marginalia on F4v. There are three states of this forme, the first without the marginalia, the second with the notes added but in a garbled form, and the third with the notes corrected. All use the new arrangement of the running titles.

Whatever the reason for the change, the alternating process then began again with skeleton one being used to set both formes of H, the new skeleton two for both formes of I, and skeleton one again for both formes of K. After this there is again evidence of a change in the sequence of imposition. Both formes of L are set in a newly arranged version of the second skeleton, with running titles in different positions and their spacing tidied up. M inner, however, was set using the version of skeleton two that had last been used for I inner, not that which was rearranged for L. Unless the skeleton was changed for L, and the running titles were then changed again and happened to resume the same places they had occupied when I was imposed, M inner was set and printed before L. More predictably, skeleton one from K was used for M outer, and this skeleton, suitably modified, was then used to set the one page (N1) needed in N outer, and the two (N1v and N2) in N inner. The hypothetical order of printing would thus be: B outer, C outer, B inner, C inner, D outer, E outer, D inner, E inner, F inner, F outer, G inner, G outer, H outer, I outer, H inner, I inner, K outer, M inner, K inner, M outer, L outer, N outer, L inner, N inner.

Quires ¶ and A were set last of all. With no headlines at all there is no question of identifying different formes, but it is reasonable to assume that the alternating pattern continued. The uneven spacing of Chapman’s In Seianum on sigs. ¶3-A1v might be taken to suggest that casting off of this poem was not very accurate, and that A inner was printed after A outer, and perhaps after ¶ outer. But design may have played a part: Eld probably wanted to place the commendatory poems in groups of one or two on separate pages, rather than straddling a page break (only Chapman’s long poem, inevitably, does this). The last six lines of his In Seianum are set very high on A1v, perhaps because Eld was planning to set Holland’s sonnet on that page also. If so, he did not quite have room, and placed it on A2 instead, setting Roe’s poem alone on the next page in larger type (the same as he used for the epistle To the Readers). He also needed to place Jonson’s Argument on a separate page, A4, and ran into trouble in a way that helps confirm that A inner was one of the last formes to be printed. A reasonable hypothesis for the cramped layout of A4 is that Jonson decided late in the day to add the coda beginning ‘This we do advance…’, which seems to allude to the Gunpowder Plot (as first suggested by Whalley , 2.133). It is wholly unconvincing as a gloss on Sejanus, and was to be dropped from the F1 version. Since he had not only already cast off copy, but was probably well on with a printing sequence that had begun with the following page, B1, the late addition of this paragraph forced Eld to the drastic step of setting the original text of The Argument in much smaller, long primer type, as opposed to the Roman pica used for most of Sejanus (the marginal notes are also in long primer). Without the additional paragraph, The Argument would, as Jowett points out, ‘have conveniently fitted the single page’ if set in Roman pica (1991, 260 ). No other Jonson quarto uses such small type for any of its preliminary material. If this reconstruction is correct, it sets the date for the printing of the play as beginning before 5 November 1605, but finishing not long after that date. That a date just after 5 November should be set as a terminus ad quem is reinforced by the detention of the Earl of Northumberland, invoked on A1 as third in the list of Privy Councillors in Chapman’s poem (line 142). Cecil had him placed under house arrest under the care of the Archbishop of Canterbury on 7 November, and it is unlikely that his name would have remained long after that event, still less after he was moved to the Tower on 27 November.

Compositors

Though Ayres (1990) , 5 suggested that Q is ‘so even … that the whole text could have been set up by one compositor’, the sequence outlined above implies more than one, and it accommodates the identification of three or four compositors proposed by Calhoun and Gravell (1993, 29-30) . Earlier studies of Eld’s printing house concentrate mainly on spelling to distinguish his compositors around this date. But the compositors appear to have been following copy too carefully in the case of Sejanus to allow their own spelling preferences to emerge in any decisive way, and Calhoun and Gravell offer an analysis based primarily on ‘the way spaces have been placed or omitted after a medial comma’, with a preference for ‘e’ or ‘ee’ in such words as ‘me’, ‘we’ etc. used only as supporting evidence. Their analysis is convincing, in that such combinations of spacing with punctuation are much more likely to reflect an individual compositor’s habits than his copy. If Calhoun and Gravell’s assignment of responsibility for setting different pages is accepted, it shows two compositors working on most formes, with compositor A doing the most work (he works on every forme except the two short ones in N). Only in one case, E outer, does one compositor (A) appear to have set the whole forme, and only in four cases (F, K, M outer and G inner) do three compositors seem to have been involved.

The proposition that three or four compositors worked on Sejanus, with two normally working together on a forme, is the more convincing because it agrees broadly with the many earlier analyses of Eld’s printing house which were not taken into account by Calhoun and Gravell : Walker (1957), 128-32 and Williams (1950-51) identified two compositors working on Troilus, Jackson (1975) two on the Sonnets, Yamada (1964) four and Evans (1970, 228) three on All Fools, Petter (1973) , xli-ii two on Eastward Ho!, and Price ‘at least two’ on Your Five Gallants, Michaelmas Term, The Revenger’s Tragedy and A Trick to Catch the Old One (1953 , 1960 , 1967 ).

Corrections

The press was stopped for changes and corrections at least once during impression of each quire, not counting the pause needed in printing each forme to adjust for the larger paper on which the presentation copies (see below) were printed (these copies tend to have a gutter almost a centimetre wider than the small-paper copies, meaning that the text blocks, including the running titles, had to be moved apart in the forme before they were printed). Ayres, following Herford and Simpson, says that Jonson ‘clearly supervised the printing process itself’ (1990 , 2; cf. H&S , 4.333). The fact that the play is more error-free than Eastward Ho!, All Fools or Troilus and Cressida supports the view that he took a close interest in the process, though not necessarily through long attendance at the printing house. It is likely that it was Jonson, as well as Eld, or a corrector working for him, who ensured that the difficult marginal notes in particular should emerge so relatively free of error. Jonson may, as Simpson thought (H&S , 4.333), have watched the printer carefully by attending the printing house. There is some evidence, however, to suggest that occasionally revises (proofs already corrected once in the printing house) were sent to Jonson at D’Aubigny’s nearby house (the practice of sending out proofs to authors is noted by Blayney, 1982 , 192). Wherever it took place, Jonson’s ‘supervision’ was in fact more sporadic than Simpson allowed, and several of the press variants were probably corrections instigated by Eld’s reader alone. It is by definition impossible to tell who was responsible for those formes which were corrected so early that they show few or no stop-press corrections and few errors (such as D, H, and M inner). If, as seems likely, they were corrected from a proof taken before printing got under way, then Jonson probably only saw them as revises at a later stage, and made no changes. The care with which he ‘watched the printer’ (H&S , 4.333) is called into question by a number of formes which show no stop-press corrections (and which one therefore assumes were also proofed at an early stage), but contain errors which one would have expected Jonson to pick up later were he really proof reading the whole text carefully: these are C inner, E outer, F inner, G outer, and K outer. One of the commonest such errors is the speech heading without a stop, or with a comma in place of a stop; others include wrongly assigned and misprinted speech headings, turned letters, and obvious errors of punctuation. These five formes also reflect a pattern that recurs throughout, in which one side of a forme shows a number of stop-press corrections, while the other shows few or none.

Formes in which the stop-press corrections can be attributed to Jonson with some confidence are D outer, F outer, G inner, H outer, K inner, and M outer. In three of these cases it is possible to reconstruct the process in some detail. In F outer Jonson probably saw a revise fairly early (only two surviving copies are uncorrected) and took advantage of the pause for corrections to add two notes on F4v. These are not keyed to letters or asterisks in the text itself, so his original copy for these lines must have been unannotated. Since it is unlikely that Jonson would have taken his bulky editions of Dio and Tacitus with him to Eld’s printing house, the addition of the notes suggests that these proofs at least were sent out to him. Jonson must either have written the notes out wrongly on the revise, or the compositor (probably compositor A) misunderstood their layout, and set them wrongly, partially transposing them. The new version was probably checked almost at once, since only one copy survives in the second state, and the mistake was rectified. The third and final state is found in ninety per cent of surviving copies.

In the case of M outer the press was stopped three times. The first corrections, again made fairly early, are three changes of punctuation which could have been made by the corrector checking against Jonson’s copy. Only after this does Jonson seem to have intervened, getting the press stopped after nearly a third of surviving copies had been printed to make a large number of corrections, many of them minor changes in punctuation, but including the resetting of two lines on M1 in small capitals, a change Eld’s corrector would probably not have made (against this, however, P’hlegra at 5.667 was overlooked in a line which has a correction in it). Printing having started again, someone noticed that despite all this scrutiny a turned letter ‘u’ had been missed only six lines below the reset passage on M1. The press was stopped again, and the last correction made, a state that survives in just three of the four large-paper copies (confirming incidentally that these were printed last). Amidst all this correction, another error than ‘P’hlegra’ still escaped, a lower case ‘a’ in ‘Reg. a guard’, on M2v (5.612).

Forme D outer has been thought to show a rather different process, that of Jonson apparently failing to supply a promised marginal annotation. In the very last line of D1 (2.40) ‘Augusta’s’ is marked with a superscript ‘d’ for a note which was apparently never printed. Moreover, the catchword ‘Be’, which only survives in one copy (Dyce 25.A.82), was lost, removed or stopped registering near the very beginning of printing. Since it was placed near where a note would have been inserted, one possibility is that the catchword was removed in anticipation of a note which never arrived, or which arrived too late (Calhoun and Gravell, 1993, 49). Only two minor errors other than the missing note survive on D outer, however, suggesting that an early proof had been taken and corrected. If so it is difficult to believe that the press would be stopped later to remove a catchword to make room for a note which had not yet arrived. The removal of the catchword would, in any case, have been unnecessary; elsewhere when a note comes near the foot of a page, the catchword is simply moved inwards, within the measure of the verse, or below the note (as in B3). While it is just possible that Jonson corrected a proof and at that early stage decided to add the note to ‘Augusta’s’, but then failed to do so, it is more likely that he had started to annotate the passage in his copy but then realised that he had already explained Augusta at 1.291, and deleted the note but not the superscript key. That the catchword failed to register after the first few impressions was probably coincidental (another catchword, ‘Or’ on K3 drifted to the right during printing). In contrast, on H2v a note on ‘Spelunca’ that had not been keyed in to the text with a superscript letter was added smoothly enough, keyed to an added asterisk, during stop-press correction of H outer. It would be wrong, however, to deduce from this, and the late-added notes in F4v, that the marginalia were in general a rushed, last-minute job. They are printed with remarkable accuracy throughout. (A number of the notes in Acts 3 and 5 are not keyed to letters in the text, presumably because the letters were not in the copy.)

Paper

Thirty-two copies of Q are known to survive. Of these, four are printed on slightly larger paper than the rest. This is a French paper with a bunch of grapes watermark and the initials BC (similar to Heawood 2136, Briquet 13173-4). From the fact that two of them (BL Ashley 3464 and Huntington 60659) have inscriptions from Jonson it is clear that they were intended for presentation to friends, patrons and potential patrons. All other copies were printed on paper with the watermarks IAR (Iacobus Anglorum Rex) or IR-AR-HP (Iacobus Rex, Anna Regina, and Henricus Princeps), each set of initials surmounted by a crown. This ‘royal’ paper was made at Dartford, probably in 1605, by James Spilman, who held the monopoly for making white paper in England. It was a most unusual paper to use: Thomas Gravell’s extensive search of nearly 600 English books in the Folger Library printed between 1605 and 1610 (and a large quantity of manuscript material) revealed no other use of this example of Spilman’s paper, whose primary use was probably for letters and similar documents associated with the royal family and household (Calhoun and Gravell, 1993, 18-19). English paper was in general both more expensive and of lower quality than that made in France, the usual source for English stationers at this time, and although Spilman’s is of good quality by English standards, it is still coarser than the French. The largest surviving copy of Q printed on Spilman’s paper (Brotherton Library, no. 32 below) suggests that sheets measured at least 41.6 x 31.4 cm, compared with a minimum of 43.4 x 31.6 for the French paper. That Eld used finer, larger and probably cheaper paper for the presentation copies, and Spilman’s more expensive but inferior English paper for the bulk of his print run is a paradox for which Calhoun and Gravell suggest two possible explanations: first, that in the aftermath of the Gunpowder Plot the choice of paper was a patriotic gesture which attested to the loyalty of the play’s Catholic author; and second, that in 1605 Jonson was living in the house of his patron, Esmé Stuart, Seigneur D’Aubigny, to whom the folio version of Sejanus was to be dedicated. Stuart was the King’s cousin, son of his first favourite, and in the highly privileged position of Gentleman of the Bedchamber he had access to James’s private stores. He could thus have eased the way to acquisition of the paper, with or without the King’s approval.

There are problems with the ‘patriotic gesture’ theory: the fact that all surviving presentation copies were printed on the French paper tends to undermine it, for recipients of these copies were precisely those whom Jonson needed to impress with his loyalty. Furthermore, if the evidence presented above that printing had begun before 5 November is accepted, the choice of paper could not have been a response to the Gunpowder Plot. Nor is the watermark so easily visible as Calhoun and Gravell state: it is difficult to detect now, and could not have been much more obvious in 1605. Neither Jonson nor Eld could have anticipated that their readers were likely to hold their copies up to the light to check the watermark. Despite all this, the paper probably was a significant choice for Jonson, if not for Thorpe and Eld. In the late summer and early autumn of 1605 Jonson, freshly released from imprisonment over Eastward Ho!, may well have welcomed an offer from D’Aubigny of use of the royal paper as a confirmation of his loyalty. D’Aubigny had been among the most influential of those who interceded for Jonson and Chapman during their imprisonment, and he continued to support Jonson for some time after his release. The suggestion that the paper was obtained through his good offices is a plausible one. If that meant it was free, or at any rate cheaper than usual, that would have been decisive for Thorpe and Eld: paper was a major part of the cost of printing in the early modern period. If we assume an edition of 500 copies, the 13.8 reams needed for Sejanus would normally have cost in the region of fifty-five shillings; for 900 copies, the cost would have been around £5.

If one can see the royal watermark as making a somewhat arcane visual statement, it is not difficult to accept that the type and layout of Q make a much clearer ‘iconographic’ statement which physically embodies ‘the Roman-ness of this most Roman of English plays’ (Ayres, 1990 , 5; cf. Jowett, 1988 ). Mention has already been made of Jonson’s use of marginalia to associate his play with classical drama as well as with learned or controversial contemporary literature. In part the marginalia were also an elaborate smokescreen, designed to divert attention from Sejanus’s contemporary implications by stressing its historical accuracy, the ‘truth of argument’ which Jonson claims for it in the epistle To the Readers. But they also function along with the inscriptional passages in much the same way as more conventional forms of imitatio function in Jonson’s poetry, to ensure that it has ‘somwhat in it moris antiqui’ (H&S, 8.372). Both the notes and the typography of such passages as 5.514-31 give Q an unmistakable mos antiqui, and with it Jonson claims a place for Sejanus not in the new and transient tradition of English theatre, on which indeed this text firmly turns its back, but in the pantheon of classical, literary drama.

The folio of 1616

Although Thorpe transferred his rights in Sejanus to Walter Burre in 1610, Burre apparently did nothing with the play, and the next edition was that printed by William Stansby in the 1616 folio Workes of Beniamin Jonson (STC 14751/14752). Stansby must have reached an agreement with Burre by 1616, but only later (in 1621) is he recorded as buying the rights from him (Arber, 1875-94 , 4.342). The copy he used was a marked up version of Q, with the addition of the dedicatory epistle to D’Aubigny and the concluding details of first performance and list of actors. The epistle To the Readers was omitted, as was the coda to ‘The Argument’ and the battery of commendatory poems, though Jonson did include two of these, a shortened version of Chapman’s Upon Sejanus and Hugh Holland’s sonnet, among the selection of poems that introduce F1 as a whole (sigs. ¶4v-6). The play itself, the fifth in the collection, begins on 2G4 (page 355) with the title ‘SEIANUS his fall. A Tragœdie. Acted, in the yeere 1603. By the K. Maiesties Servants. The Author B.I.’. This title page has the same motto from Martial as Q, and the imprint ‘London, Printed by William Stansby, m. dc. xvi.’ It collates 2G4-2O3v (pp. 355-438): 2G4, title. 2G4v, blank. 2G5, Epistle to D’Aubigny. 2G5v, ‘The Argument’. 2G6, ‘The Persons of the Play’. 2G6v-2O3, text of play. 2O3v, details of first performance and list of ‘principall Tragœdians’. As in Q, there is a half-title, ‘SEIANUS.’ at the beginning of the text (2G6v), and the running title ‘Seianus.’ from 2H1-2O3 (pp. 361-437).

The standardisation required by F1 dictated such changes as the use of upper case for personal names, as opposed to Q’s italics, and a process of Anglicisation that largely destroyed the ‘Roman’ effect of Q by replacing ‘ACTVS PRIMVS’ etc. with ‘Act I’, ‘Mv. Chorvs.’ with ‘CHORVS ─ Of Musicians.’ and ‘FINIS’ with F1’s normal ‘THE END’. As elsewhere in F1, Stansby preferred exclamation marks (what he would have called ‘points of admiration’) to the question marks used in Q to signify surprise or wonder. Whether Stansby or Jonson was responsible for reducing the number of sententiae marked with inverted commas at the beginning of the line is uncertain. According to de Vocht (1935, 139) , 154 such lines are reduced to 21. More significant than the number, however, is the fact that 20 of these are found in Act 1, in quire 2H, where F1 faithfully follows Q’s setting of the inverted commas from the beginning of the play until 1.498-502, where the pointing is dropped for the first time. These lines are on 2H6, probably the penultimate forme of that quire to be set. Thereafter sententiae are not marked at all, with one exception at 2.476. The explanation for this anomaly is that it occurs on 2I6v, which would, with 2I1r, have been the next sheet printed after 2H3v-2H4, the latter of which has 3 lines of sententiae at the foot of the right hand page. It would not have struck the compositor or corrector as a problem that the inverted commas appeared again at the bottom of the next sheet to be printed.

This and many smaller changes may well have been the responsibility of Stansby or his compositors, rather than being derived from Jonson’s copy. It is clear, however, that Jonson did go through Q revising and correcting to prepare the copy for F1, as he did whenever a quarto was available. Many of Q’s idiosyncratic spellings, and some of its mistakes, are taken over, but the most compelling evidence that Q was used (rather than a new manuscript) is found in two uncorrected errors in F1 which can be traced directly to Q. At 3.78-9 Tiberius publicly and rather grandiloquently offers the Senators to Nero and Drusus as adoptive parents. In Q the lines read ‘Nero, and Druſus, (a) theſe ſhalbe to you / In place of Parents…’ (sig. F1). The bracketed ‘a’, referring to a marginal note, was dropped for F1 along with the note, but the first bracket survives there, presumably because it was not clearly cancelled in the copy. Since in F1 such brackets indicate an aside, Tiberius’s grand statement becomes an incongruous murmur: ‘Nero, and Drusus, (these shall be to you / In place of parents…’ (sig. 2K2). Similarly, at 5.667 a printer’s error which survives in a much-corrected forme of Q, M outer, is carried over straightforwardly into F1. Lines 666-7 were probably originally set for Q as ‘’Gainſt Cæſars bounty, did condemne himſelfe? / Phlegra, the field, where all the ſonnes of Earth’. At a very early stage, perhaps when the locked-up forme was being carried to the press, the apostrophe from ‘’Gainst’ slipped neatly down a line, so that all surviving impressions read ‘Gainst Cæſars …/ P’hlegra…’. Since the Ph of Phlegra is a digraph representing the Greek Φ, it is meaningless to divide it, as Jonson well knew (cf. Grammar, 1.4.131-2 and 2.1, passim), but a compositor or corrector would not. Stop-press correction of Q restored an apostrophe to ‘’Gainst’, and changed ‘ſonnes’ to ‘Sonnes’, but the P’h went unnoticed, and remained so when Jonson revised Q. It was therefore set thus by the compositor of F1 (who was in any case working from a copy of Q in which this forme was in its first, uncorrected state). Since P’hlegra is a catchword in F1, he set it twice, at the foot of 2N6 and the top of 2N6v.

The most substantial overall changes Jonson made in revising Q for F1 are the almost complete deletion of the marginalia and the replacement of the inscriptional typefaces of such passages as 5.514-22 with italic type. The example of the Nero and Drusus passage (3.78-9, quoted above) suggests that the marginalia and their keys were each individually crossed out, and this is supported by the fact that three very short marginal notes were retained in a form that could have been achieved by leaving them undeleted: ‘Pedarij’ further defines the status of the Senators referred to in 1.48, and ‘Fortuna equestris’ identifies the ‘goddess’ of 1.509. At 2.349 a note explains that ‘your kindest friend’ was ‘Mutilia Prisca’ (a shortened version of Q’s reference to Tacitus). At 3.513-6, however, the note ‘His daughter was betroth’d to Claudius, his sonne’ is new, translating Jonson’s own Latin note in Q – adding, as de Vocht pointed out (1935, 172) , a superfluous comma, since it was ‘Claudius his sonne’ Drusus who was ‘betroth’d’. The other three notes in F1 were introduced for the first time, all on sigs. 2K2v and 2K3, and they were addressed to a readership less well informed than that ‘learned’ one to whom Jonson had addressed Q’s notes. To the italicised passages in which the Senate speaks in one ‘general voice’ at 3.92-4 and 3.141-4 (passages Jonson had felt no need to explain in 1605) he added ‘A forme of speaking they had’ and ‘Another forme’. Between these two additions, he explained ‘that charm’ which Tiberius wears in 3.123 with the simple note ‘A wreath of laurell’. This replaced Q’s long Latin citation from Suetonius, with supporting reference to Pliny. It is not at all clear why Jonson felt the need to retain or add these seven notes while deleting almost three hundred others. It is impossible to agree with de Vocht (1935, 170-4) that such changes in F1 were made without his authority, but the fact that the two he retained from Act 1 were on the same forme (sigs. 2H1 and 2H6v), while the three added in Act 3 were in the same quire, if not the same forme, suggests that it was a rather sporadic, inconsistent process.

The other substantial change Jonson made in the copy for F1 is the addition of twenty-seven stage directions, set in the margins. Q had contained only two, and these were essentially antiquarian, elaborating on the ritual at 5.172 and 183. Those Jonson added, many of them in Act 5, clarify the action for the reader in a more conventional way, though, as in Q, exits and entrances are not spelt out. Although the resulting total of twenty-nine stage directions in the 1616 version is in sharp contrast to Poetaster, which has only nine, it is broadly comparable to those in other plays in F1 (Volpone, the play that follows Sejanus, has thirty, Cynthia’s Revels forty). Only in these stage directions, some at least of which must reflect Jonson’s memory of the action of the unrevised play (see e.g. 5.430, 460), and in the list of actors, does F1 take the reader any nearer to the original performance than does Q.

Many of the revisions made before the printing of F1 began were matters of punctuation, including the omission of a number of the ‘metrical apostrophes’ used in Q. Here it is possible to agree with de Vocht that the responsibility may be a compositor’s. The same may be true of the change of Q’s ‘vertu’s’ to the blander ‘vertuous’ at 2.434, but at least one more substantial change must be Jonson’s. At 3.302-5 in Q, Silius tells Tiberius that

ſo ſoone, all beſt Turnes

With Princes, do conuert to iniuries

In eſtimation, when they greater riſe,

Then can be anſwer’d (Q, F3v).

This subversive (and genuinely Machiavellian) observation was the more disturbing in 1603-5 because Silius’s trial has strong parallels with those of Essex in 1601 and of Raleigh in 1603. In F1 Jonson modified ‘Princes’ with the adjective ‘doubtfull’:

all beſt turnes

With doubtfull Princes, turne deepe iniuries

In eſtimation (F1, 2K4v).

It has usually been assumed that this was an act of self-censorship (H&S, 2.4-5, 9.587-8; Barish, 193; Ayres, 7), but it is more likely, as McKenzie (1988, 28) suggested, that Jonson revised to emphasize the particular psychological state of the dissembling tyrant – full of anxiety, but also difficult to interpret – rather than to exclude such confident and trustworthy princes as James. This latter may have been a secondary consideration, but if so it involved no compromise with his practice elsewhere in the play. ‘Doubtful’ was the adjective he had used to characterise Tiberius’s ‘long . . . letter’ (Argument, 28), and Sabinus uses ‘jealous princes’ in a very similar context at 1.161. Silius himself had already made the distinction between the ‘virtuous prince’ and the dissembling Tiberius at 1.408, very much as Jonson had in his own voice distinguished ‘the worst princes’ from the virtuous and pious in the Argument. It is true that, as Ayres says (7) , the revision involves an awkward repetition of ‘turn’, but this does not seem enough to justify its rejection as a change forced on Jonson.

The change in 3.529 of ‘Prince’ to ‘master’ can hardly have been due to anything other than a desire to emphasize the unctuous insincerity of Sejanus’s avowal of loyal humility. Like the introduction of ‘doubtfull’ in the previous passage, however, it throws out the scansion, as does the insertion of ‘afford him’ for ‘bestow’ at 5.376, a collocation which suggests Jonson revised with an eye to meaning rather than an ear to the verse. Passages which he revised to better effect (often by changing a single word) are found at 3.62, 3.360, 3.505, 4.368, and 5.454. But revision of Q was not so thorough that he did not need to continue to make a large number of corrections during printing. Authorial revision is evident in most of the stop-press corrections to 2G5v, 2L2 and 2L5v, 2L3 and 2L4v, 2M3 and 2M4v, and probably in 2L1v and 2L6 and 2O1v. Ayres collated 106 stop-press corrections in all, most of them changing punctuation or single words (such as ‘ready’ for ‘facile’ in 4.154). No doubt a few of these can be put down to the compositors being unable to read all of Jonson’s revisions to Q, but this cannot be true of many, especially of the most conspicuous change. This, which Percy Simpson rather extravagantly called the ‘most striking . . . in the whole text of the Folio’ (H&S, 4.336), is a stop-press correction to 4.438. F1 had originally followed Q in making Pomponius express his anxiety over Sejanus with the oath ‘By Castor, that’s the worst’, at which the listening Arruntius comments aside ‘By Pollux, best.’ This neat pairing of the Dioscuri was changed in later versions of F1 to ‘Pom. By Castor, that’s the worst. (Arr. By Hercules, best.)’. The reason for the change is a passage from Noctes Atticae (first noted by Whalley, 3.178 , in his notes to Catiline) in which Aulus Gellius says that ‘in old writings Roman women do not swear by Hercules, nor men by Castor … ‘By Pollux’ [ædipol], however, … is common to both men and women.’ (Noctes Atticæ 11.6). Jonson did not learn of this passage until sometime between 1605 and 1611. He had already made a similar mistake in 1601, when he made Cytheris in Poetaster swear by Hercules at 4.1.12, a mistake he rectified in his copy for F1. By 1611, however, Curius in Catiline swears by Pollux, and Fulvia replies correctly ‘by Castor’ (2.282-3). The number of such oaths in one act of Catiline (cf. 2.86, 210, 227), though justified in context, suggests that Jonson wanted to underline his new historical awareness. That he should have subsequently corrected the mistake in revising Poetaster but missed it while marking up the quarto copy of Sejanus confirms that the latter process was much less painstaking than might have been expected. Although it is part of the evidence that undermines Simpson’s description of F1 as ‘this final and authoritative text’ ( H&S 4.335), however, it does not justify de Vocht’s partisan conclusion that this stop-press change ‘supplies the positive proof’ that Jonson took little or no part in the changes made in F1 ( de Vocht, 1935, 199-200 ).

F1, then, shows signs of being less carefully revised than Simpson, Gifford and others thought. It lacks the epistle To the Readers, the commendatory poems, and above all the marginalia and typography of Q. Minor revisions of punctuation, the curtailing of gnomic markings and metrical apostrophes, may have been made by Stansby or his compositors rather than by Jonson. If the revision of 3.302-5 is seen as an attempt to clarify, rather than self-censorship, only in that change, in the correction of the oaths, a handful of minor revisions which clarify meaning, the epistle to D’Aubigny, the list of actors and the addition of stage directions does F1 offer a significantly better text than Q. In this edition I have therefore used F1 exactly as Greg (1950-1) , 35 suggested:

In the case of a work like Sejanus, in which correction or revision has been slight, it would obviously be possible to take the quarto as the copy text and introduce into it whatever authoritative alterations the folio may supply.

I have taken the alteration to ‘doubtful princes’ at 3.302-5 as ‘authoritative’, for the reasons given above, and have incorporated it along with less contentious revisions that appear to be Jonson’s.

Later editions

All later editions of Sejanus until those of De Vocht and Ayres were based closely on F1. It was next printed in volume 1 of the 1640 folio Works, F2(1) , by Richard Bishop, who had bought Stansby’s business for £700 in 1634 (Plomer, 1907 , 25). To print Sejanus Bishop used a copy of F1 which contained the uncorrected state of 2L3-2L4v and 2O1v; otherwise he incorporated all the stop-press corrections in F1. He did not introduce any changes which are likely to be authorial, but though F2(1) is often described as simply a reprint of F1, Bishop did do some editing. He modernised spelling (‘than’ for ‘then’, ‘increase’ for ‘encrease’, ‘scent’ for ‘sent’, etc.) and punctuation, greatly reducing the metrical apostrophe, and using the semi-colon much more than Q or F1, mainly in place of their commas. He opened out abbreviations, and modernised such archaic forms as ‘nor’ in 1.13, so that ‘We have nor place in court’ becomes ‘We have no place in court’. Sometimes he misunderstood, so that in 2.11 ‘the most apt, and abled instrument’ is wrongly ‘corrected’ to ‘the most apt, and ablest’. At 4.232 an inserted semi-colon almost reverses the meaning of the line: ‘The fault’s not shamefull; villanie makes a fault’. Other emendations are mostly similarly unhappy: Arruntius is pointlessly made to say ‘dare to’ instead of ‘dare’ at 1.259, a change which may have been intended to correct his grammar, but which destroys the bitter rhythm of the line. Much of the simpler modernising was, however, intelligently done, and Bishop’s was the first text to print the Greek accents in 2.330 correctly, as Simpson pointed out (H&S, 4.343 ). Simpson suggested that Kenelm Digby may have been responsible, but it is quite possible that Bishop employed a compositor or corrector who read Greek.

Sejanus next appeared in the 1692 folio Works of Ben Jonson (F3) , printed by Thomas Hodgkin for a consortium of booksellers. The text is printed in double column throughout, and the stage directions and other marginalia from the folios are placed within the measure, making it visually a very different production from the earlier folios. The text itself, however, is very close to that in F2(1) , which clearly provided the copy. F3 takes the modernising of spelling and punctuation a stage further (thus Q and F1’s ‘farder’, which had become ‘farther’ in F2(1), becomes ‘further’ in F3), but it takes over all F2(1)’s mistaken revisions (printing, for example, ‘dare to’ in 1.259, ‘apt and ablest’ in 2.11) along with its more successful ones.

F3 became in its turn the copy text for the six volume edition of the Works of Ben Jonson (1716-17) published by an even larger consortium of booksellers, in which Sejanus occupied pages 1-110 of volume 2. This edition is of no textual significance except that it provided the unacknowledged copy text for the man who claimed to be the first real editor of Jonson, Peter Whalley, whose edition of the Works , this time in seven volumes, appeared in 1756. Sejanus is on pp. 125-262 of volume 2. Though he claimed that his edition was ‘Collated with all the former editions, and corrected’ (title-page), there is some truth in William Gifford’s derisive charge that Whalley’s editorial practice was to reprint the edition of 1716-17, only returning to an earlier reading when he spotted ‘a palpable error of the press’ at which he ‘turned for the first time to the old copy, and invited the public to witness [his] sagacity’ (Gifford, 1.ccxxxv) . In Sejanus the previous edition had made such an error, printing ‘dangerous bastard’ for ‘degenerous bastard’ in 3.387, an error which Whalley did indeed correct with a certain complacency (3.192). But Gifford’s diagnosis is characteristically harsh: Whalley returned more often than he allowed to readings from Q as well as Ff, and he was the first to print an eclectic text of Sejanus, adding To the Readers from Q, and using the latter to correct such errors in Ff as ‘betts’ for ‘lets’ in 2.400. He was the first to restore ‘abled’ for ‘ablest’ (which had by 1716-17 become ‘and blest’) at 2.11, and ‘dare’ for ‘dare to’ at 1.259. He also took modernisation much further than earlier editions, and was the first to provide annotations (though he does not print Jonson’s own notes). Whalley’s preface records the loan from Richard Rawlinson of the copy of Q which Jonson had presented to Francis Crane, and which is now Huntington 60659. He also had access to Garrick’s copy, now BL 644.b.53.

An anonymous adaptation, The Favourite, was published in 1770, with ‘several speeches … taken from that great dramatic author Ben Jonson; how suitable the subject is to British policy for some years back the public must judge’ (vii).

Gifford’s own great edition, The Works of Ben Jonson (1816) made a more thorough return to the earliest texts. It is the best-printed edition of any date, by William Bulmer, an important example of early nineteenth-century ‘fine printing’. Sejanus is in the third of Gifford’s nine volumes, on pp. 3-157. Though Simpson asserts (H&S 9.143) that Bulmer used a copy of Whalley’s edition to set up his text, this is not evident for Sejanus. Gifford’s copy text was F1, which, like Whalley and Herford and Simpson, he believed was more carefully supervised by Jonson than was the case. He normally returned to F1’s readings, therefore, but he also incorporated material from Q, printing the epistle To the Readers as part of the main text. All the commendatory poems are printed (though Gifford chooses the shorter version of Chapman’s poem), but they are collected with those from other plays in the first volume. For the first time since 1605 all Q’s marginalia were included, printed at the foot of the page. Gifford did not collate separate copies of F1 so that, for example, he printed the uncorrected exchange of oaths to Castor and Pollux at 4.438 (Whalley had printed the corrected version). But his edition was thorough, intelligent, and scrupulous in other respects. He incorporated and acknowledged much of Whalley’s commentary and added his own, sometimes recording substantive variants between Q and F1, often taking lively and irascible issue with Whalley and the Shakespearean denigrators of Jonson, especially Steevens and Malone. Gifford modernised Jonson’s spelling thoroughly, but only emended his punctuation sparingly. He also divided the acts into separate scenes, and added numerous stage directions. Perhaps the greatest compliment to Gifford is the silent adoption of his text, scene divisions, and stage directions by most subsequent editors.

Editions which merely reprinted Gifford’s were produced by B. W. Procter under the name ‘Barry Cornwall’ (1838, one volume) and by Francis Cunningham (1875, 9 vols.) . Cunningham had earlier produced a slightly revised version of Gifford (3 vols., 1871) . None of these added anything of consequence to Gifford’s text of Sejanus. Nor did the single-volume edition of Sejanus (the first since 1605) ‘Herausgegeben und erklart von Dr. Carl Sachs’ (Leipzig, 1862). Sachs omitted all the prefatory material, and reprinted Gifford’s text of the play. The next single-volume edition, a much more significant one, was that edited by W. D. Briggs (Boston, 1911) . Briggs’s text aimed at ‘an accurate reproduction’ of F1 (1911, lix), of which he collated three copies. He therefore did not adopt any of Q’s readings in the text of the play proper, but he added To the Readers and the commendatory poems from Q, and printed Jonson’s annotations along with his own. Inconsistently, in view of his aim of accurate reproduction of F1, Briggs also silently adopted Gifford’s scene divisions and many of his stage directions.

A little earlier than Briggs’s edition the authority of F1 had been questioned, with reference to EMO, by Van Dam and Stoffel (1903) . The latters’ ill-informed arguments against Jonson’s involvement with its revisions made no obvious impact, except on Henry de Vocht, who repeated the case against F1 in greater detail, but no more persuasively, in his 1935 type-facsimile edition of Q. De Vocht’s text is painstakingly accurate, but his unintelligent argument and absurd refusal to allow any kind of authority to F1 did no service to the case for taking Q as the copy-text for Sejanus.

De Vocht’s textual essay had engaged angrily but incoherently with what was then the most important edition of Sejanus since Gifford’s. This was in the then recently-published fourth volume of H&S, edited by Percy Simpson (H&S, 4.327-486) . Ironically, Simpson had turned more often to Q for readings in the case of Sejanus than with most of the plays in the H&S edition (cf. Greg, 1950-1, 34). Like Whalley and Gifford, he produced an eclectic text, again incorporating the epistle To the Readers, and printing the marginalia (with corrections) as an appendix (4.472-85). This eclecticism is, as Jowett (1988) , 285, points out, slightly inconsistent in an old-spelling edition that imitates the type and layout of F1. Simpson collated seven copies of Q (one more than de Vocht), along with the eight copies of F1 that formed the basis of the whole H&S edition. He replied to de Vocht’s splenetic criticism in ‘An Attack upon the Folio’ (H&S, 9.74-84) and in a separate article (Simpson, 1937) , and did not exaggerate in describing de Vocht’s tirade as ‘one of the most futile efforts ever made to discredit the authority of a great classic text’ (H&S, 9.84).

The authority H&S gave F1 (and indeed the authority of their own edition) persuaded the general editors of the Yale Ben Jonson to follow the folio throughout, and Jonas Barish’s edition of Sejanus, volume 3 of that series (1965) , duly did so, arguing that ‘although the Quarto constitutes an authoritative text, it is superseded by that of the 1616 Folio, which was revised by Jonson in about eighty places as the volume was going through the press’ (205). The figure comes from Simpson: ‘he corrected no less than eighty passages in this final and authoritative text’ (H&S, 4.335). In fact, as has been seen, there are over a hundred such corrections, but despite this attention F1’s text of Sejanus was less final and authoritative than Simpson allowed. Though heavily dependent textually on H&S, however, Barish’s is a modernized text, and as such owes much also to Gifford, particularly in the matter of stage directions.

The next single-volume edition, by W. F. Bolton in the New Mermaids series (1966) , was published almost contemporaneously with Barish’s edition, and was unable to take the latter into account. It was in fact a very similar edition, a modernized text based on F1, and relying heavily on H&S and Gifford. The only major difference between the two texts is that Bolton introduces a number of scene divisions, similar to but not exactly the same as Gifford’s, while retaining the line numbering of each act throughout. Both Barish and Bolton follow Gifford and H&S in including To the Readers from Q, but both omit the commendatory poems and the marginalia.

In the later twentieth century Sejanus appeared in four selected editions of Jonson, those by Wilkes (Five Plays, 1988) , Procter (1989) , Hutson (Volp., 1998) and Kidnie (2000) . Of these, only Kidnie based her text on Q, not incorporating the changes made in F1, but omitting Q’s marginal notes. In addition, a facsimile of Q copied from Malone 222(7) was published in 1970 by Theatrum Orbis Terrarum Ltd, Amsterdam, and Da Capo Press, New York, number 265 in The English Experience. The most carefully edited single-volume edition of Sejanus, that of Philip J. Ayres for the Revels series (1990) has been described above. The three important articles on the printing of Q by Calhoun and Gravell (1993) and Jowett (1988 and 1991 ) were not available to Ayres. They reinforce his and earlier arguments for Q as the text that most fully incorporates Jonson’s intentions.

Together Ayres, Calhoun and Gravell collated a total of 30 copies of Q (Ayres collated 23, Calhoun and Gravell 24). In view of this very large number, and the combined thoroughness of both these collations of the text, I have not thought it necessary to re-examine all available copies. I have, however, freshly collated 18 of them, and added two more, those at Corpus Christi College, Oxford (12) and the Brotherton Collection, University of Leeds (32). A revised table collating all these copies by formes follows; those that I have not re-examined are marked with an asterisk in the list attached. Ayres also collated 14 copies of F1’s text of Sejanus. I have re-examined seven of these, and collated five more, without finding any further variants. Since F1 is not a copy-text for this edition, these copies are not collated here by formes. Such a collation would in any case simply repeat that by Ayres (1990, 275-9). Stop-press corrections to F1 are, however, recorded in the collation at the foot of the page.

COPIES OF 1605 QUARTO COLLATED

Copies collated:

British Library, Ashley 3464. Large-paper presentation copy given to Sir Robert Townshend, with inscription in Jonson’s hand on t-p: ‘The Testemony of my affection, & Obseruance to my noble Friend Sr. Robert Townshend wch I desire may remayne wth him, & last beyond Marble’. The signature is largely cropped. Formerly belonging to Thomas J. Wise, but not tampered with.

British Library, 644. b. 53. Formerly Garrick’s copy; imperfect, wanting sigs. M and N.

Victoria and Albert Museum, Dyce D25 A80. Large-paper copy. 7 15/16 x 5 3/4

Victoria and Albert Museum, Dyce D25 A82, ‘Roxburghe copy’

Victoria and Albert Museum, Dyce D25 A81

St. John’s College, Cambridge Gg.6 425. Gift of Francis Dee, Bishop of Peterborough, b. ca. 1583, d. 1638; imperfect, wanting sig. ¶1.

King’s College, Cambridge C.7.19. Keynes Bequest.

King’s College, Cambridge C.7.20. Imperfect, wanting sigs. ¶, A1-2.

Bodleian, Malone 222.

Bodleian, Malone 189 6. Imperfect, wanting sigs. ¶ 1-2

New College, Oxford. Contains some marginal notes in a contemporary hand, of which the most interesting are those at 1.22-9: ‘of the cour[t?] a description of thos that creepe v[nto?] the court by slauery and [not?] by seruice’ and 1.61-72 (64-72 underlined) ‘[?D]e temporibus / de malo tempores’ and ‘de tyran[nis] / the art[s of] tyrant[s?]’.

Corpus Christi College, Oxford.

National Library of Scotland, Bute 301.

Earl of Verulam, currently on loan to Bodleian. Possibly Francis Bacon’s copy, but with no marks of ownership. Added note in pen in contemporary hand: N1v, 5.875 ‘Her ddrowned voice’ margin ‘d Dio p’. On F3r, 240 ‘SIL’ is corrected in ink (from SEI), as in Townshend copy. The marginal note is in a hand similar to Jonson’s, but the sample is too small to be certain.

*New York Public Library. Large paper copy.

Beinecke Library Ih.J738.605s, Yale University

*Houghton STC 14782, copy A.

Houghton STC 14782, copy B.

*Folger Shakespeare Library.

Dartmouth College, Hanover, New Hamsphire, Hickmott 170

Chapin Library, Williams College.

*University of Texas, Austin, Pforzheimer Library

*Newberry Library, Chicago. Imperfect, wanting all sigs. C and D, N2 handwritten.

Huntington 60659. Ex-Huth, large paper presentation copy given to Francis Crane; Jonson’s inscription on fly-leaf

*Huntington 62064.

*Pierpont Morgan Library, New York.

*Robert Taylor Collection, Princeton.

*University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 822 J73S. Inscribed ‘Roger Twysden in 1624’.Some pages reportedly made up from other copies.

*John Wolfson 1. Imperfect, wanting sig. ¶1. Reported sold 1983, present whereabouts unknown.

*John Wolfson 2. Imperfect, wanting sig. ¶ 1.

*Turnbull Lib., N .Z. Imperfect, wanting sigs. ¶, A1r-A3v.

Brotherton Library, University of Leeds. Imperfect; sigs. ¶1r-2v supplied from another copy, the title-page inscribed “Guilpin / Ex dono Edw / Palauicine”. Sigs. N1r-N2r supplied in manuscript in a seventeenth-century hand.

COLLATION OF 1605 QUARTO BY FORMES

page breakouter
¶1 3
¶1 9
State 1
Writen
Ellde
State 2
Written
~
State 3
~
Elld
¶ inner
¶2 20
¶3v 31
34
35
36
46
58
58
¶4 3
5
6
7
21
28
29
30
31
31
32
35
36
State 1
Horace,
s ubiect
Semicircle
Sphære
Liues,
And … waters
presence
faltter
eye … flame
truly,
inspireth
unduly,
others
emminence
one
another
life,
knowne.
Degrees,
Instruction;or
deseruing.
State 2
Horace
subiect
Semi-circle
Sphære,
Liues:
And, … waters,
Presence
falter
eye, … flame,
truly
inspireth:
unduly
Others
emminence,
One
Another
Life
knowne:
Degrees.
Instruction; or
deseruing:
A inner
A1v 3
3-6
3
A2 4
5
7
14
23
25
29
A3v 4
10
19
33
A4 13
16
17
22
23
State 1
space between lines
not indented
friend
ambitions
heau’d
Kings
Time’s
grace,
greatnesse;
Tragedians
Yea
And … Conceat.
When
Ed. B
sucesseful
selfe
meanes
life
Tiberius
State 2
no space between lines indented
Friend
Ambition’s
heaue
Kings
Times
grace;
greatnesse,
Tragedians,
Yet
(And … conceat.)
Whē
Ev. B
successeful
selfe,
meanes;
Life
Tiberias
State 3
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
Tiberius
B outer
B1 16
19
B2v 19
37
B3 4
18
State 1
c We did by
d That we
(He
Lands
Macedons
Lou’d
State 2
We did by c
That we d
~
~
~
~
State 3
~
~
(he
lands
Macedon’s
lou’d
B inner
B3v 18
State 1
On?
State 2
On.
C outer
C4v 28

M. CHORVS

MV. CHORVS
D outer
D1 catchword

Be

omitted
E inner
E1v 27
E229
E3v 13
31
E4 9
State 1
he (must
saftly
noyse
do it
noble-lookers
State 2
(he must
~
noyse,
do it,
noble Lookers
State 3
~
safely
~
~
~
F outer
F1 20
F2v 23
31
F3 8
F4v 12
18
Margin, 25, 29

now?
Dignity
Nay I
of State
ô that
Informers
Both notes missing

now!
dignity
Nay, I
of the State
ô, that
Informers,
Notes inserted wrongly: Dio ref. placed at 25, first Tacitus ref. at 29.

Verse corrections as in state 2, but transposed notes corrected
G: Inner
G2 34
G4 36
37
State 1
Beneath
more,
hates,
State 2
Betweene
more
hates
H outer
H1 34
H2v 20
21-4 margin
31 note b
H3 1
12
13
17
29
34
H4v 8
13
15
17
17
30
32
33
36
37
State 1
stild
Spelunca
no note *
materi-/am
oppose:
trust and Grace
then
must
Lord Seianus
speed:
look’t
in her,
her.
Hatred
bursl
Sonne
ambitious
clings
him in
him, in
State 2
stil’d
*Spelunca
note * inserted
materi-/em
oppose;
trust, and grace
~
~
Lord a Seianus
speed.
look’t,
in her;
her:
hatred
burst
Sonne,
ambitious,
clasp’s
him, in
him, by
State 3
~
~
~
~
~
~
hem
most
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
State 4
~
~
~
~
~
~
then
must
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
H inner
H2 11
State 1
thon
State 2
thou
I outer
I3 7
I4v catchword
State 1
Night-ey d
(apostrophe turned, & set below line)
See’ng
State 2
Night-ey’d
Seeing
I inner
I3v, 4.414

Mar.

Min.
K inner
K3v 17
23
23

TIRENTIVS
vessels
offrings

TERENTIVS
Vessels
Offrings
L outer
L2v 5
L4v 16
27
State 1
nr
AANQUINIVS
Sam.
State 2
nor
~
~
State 3
~
SANQUINIVS
San.
L: Inner
L2 31 note b
State 1
Meridie
State 2
Meridies
M outer
M1 7
14
18 note a
28-9
35
M2v 6
7
7
15
36
M3 4
5
12
17
22
25
33
34
M4v 2
9
9
10
12
17
27
State 1
state
elbow’or
de formut.
May What … Wealth (large caps. for initial letters)
lones (turned ‘u’)
remooue
off!
winde.
There’s
O the
friends
Hayles
An … man,
forth
downe
nostrils.
Gainst
sonnes
Eager
Capitoll;
Circke,
Mastiues
fury;
too
slacknesse
State 2
~
elbow, or
~
~
~
~
~
remooue─
~
~
~
~
~
Hayles,
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
State 3
State
~
de formul.
may what … wealth (small caps except Tvrne )
~
~
off,
winde!
Here’s
O, the
friend
~
(An … man)
forth,
downe,
nostril:
’Gainst
Sonnes
eager
Capitoll,
Circke:
Mastiues
fury,
to
slacknesse,
State 4
~
~

~
~
~
~
loues


~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
nostrills:
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
N inner
N1 30
N2 15
36
State 1
heare
Akr.
’Evendoth
State 2
haire
~
’Even doth
State 3
~
Arr.
~

DISTRIBUTION OF VARIANTS
¶ outer
State 1: 16
State 2: 5, 9, 12, 17, 25, 26, 27, 28, 32
State 3:
the rest (but leaf ¶ 1 missing in 6, 8, 10, 11, 29, 30, 31; supplied from another copy in 32) inner
State 1: 4, 5, 9, 12, 16, 17, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 32
State 2:
the rest
(but leaf ¶2 missing in 10, 31;supplied from another copy in 32; leaves ¶3& 4 missing in 31)
A inner
State 1 : 23, 32
(During correction Tiberius in l. 26 became Tiberias, which was corrected in State 3).
State 2: 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 14, 15, 22, 24, 25.
State 3: the rest (leaves A1r-A3v missing in 31)
B outer
State 1: 30, 31
State 2: 19, 26, 28
State 3: the rest
(correction loosened type so that in State 3 spacing is irregular in B2v, line 135 and B3r line 160. This varies, but is especially noticeable in 1, 3, 23, and 24).
B inner
State 1: 1, 3, 4, 11, 15, 19, 21, 23, 24, 26, 27, 28, 29, 31
State 2: the rest
C outer
State 1: 14, 22
State 2 : the rest (Sheet C missing in 23)
D outer
?State 1: 4
? State 2: the rest
E inner
State 1: 5, 8, 17, 29, 31
State 2: 1*, 3*, 4, 9, 10, 11, 12, 15, 16, 18, 19, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 30, 32
State 3: the rest
(*1, 3 are corrected by pen)
F outer
State 1: 13, 23
State 2: 10
State 3: the rest
G inner
State 1: 11, 17, 19, 28
State 2:
the rest
H outer
State 1: 2, 7, 14, 18, 28*
(*28 is anomalous, made up from separate pages laid on new paper.)
State 2: 9, 12, 16, 25, 26, 30, 32
State 3: 21
State 4: the rest
H inner
State 1: 24
State 2: the rest
I outer
State 1: 10, 13, 23
State 2: the rest
State 2: the rest
I inner
State 1: 1, 2, 3, 7, 15, 24
State 2: the rest (3 is corrected by pen)
K inner
State 1: 2, 10, 14, 15, 18, 21, 22, 26, 30
State 2: the rest
L outer
State 1: 30
State 2: 4, 5, 8, 9, 12, 17, 19, 25, 27, 32
State 3: the rest
L inner
State 1: 4, 5, 8, 11, 17, 19, 25, 28, 30, 31
State 2: the rest
M outer
State 1: 14, 22
State 2: 5, 6, 8, 9, 13, 23, 25, 30
State 3: 1, 4, 7, 10-12, 16-21, 26, 27-29, 31, 32
State 4: 3, 24, 15 (Sheet M missing in 2)
N inner
State 1: 8, 12, 16, 17, 26, 31
State 2: 1, 3, 13, 18, 20, 22, 27
State 3: the rest
(Sheet N missing in 2, 29, 30, 32)

COLLATION OF F1 TEXT, BY DAVID. L. GANTS

2G 2:5 (o)
2G2 351 State 1 State 2 State 3
18 [line flush left] [line indented] ---
2G5v
1 Argument ~. ---
4 court: --- ~;
8 it ... out, ---
15 and ... Em- | pire & ... Empire: | where ---
16 and ... in | reſpect & ... re- | ſpect ---
17 hope) he | deuiſeth hope for the ſuc- | ceſſion) he ---
18 and inſtills ... his | eares & inſtill’s in- | to ---
19 their | mother and | their ---
20 coue- | touſly co- | uetouſly ---
22 he labours ... Li- | uia --- Seianus labors ... | Liuia
25 ſeparated retyred ---
27 eares feares ---
28 there --- ~,
34 with one letter, and in one | day --- and with a long doubtfull | letter, in one day
35 by | the --- torne | in
2I 2:5 (o)
2I5v 382 State 1 State 2
15 ciuilwar ciuill warre
2I 3:4 (o)
2I4v 380
21 Sacrouir SACROVIR
2K 2:5 (o)
2K2 387
36 go[inverted comma]ds, gods
2K 3:4 (o)
2K3 389
39 na [frisket bite] name
42 fear[frisket bite] feare:
2L 2:5 (o)
2L2 399
12 shall. Dull ~: dull
2L5v 496
10 wife ~,
11 hate, ~;
27 Vultures vultures
28 firſt ~,
33 fooles ~,
41 facile readie
2L 3:4 (o)
2L3 401
3 awhile!) when ~.) When
4 your our
7 choiſe ~,
8 ambition, ~:
14 Capua; Th’ ~, th’
22 eare; ~,
23 DRVSVS; ~,
26 him: ~.
31 much humour fit matter
34 apprehends: ~.
36 nature: ~.
37 Affections ~,
43 Thinke thinke
2L4v 404
1 they ~,
6 For for
19 Others others
2L 1:6 (i)
2L1v 398
2 we ... ſuch, ~, ... ~.
9 marrie ~,
17 forth; ~:
21 LIVIA who was ~, firſt the
22 to DRVSVS my ~
40 vs, ~;
41 Only ~,
42 beleeue Beleeue,
44 merit; ~.
2L6 407
7 ſoueraigne; ~,
15 SEIANVS? ~!
20 Empire empire
28 feare, ~.
37 That that
41 grace; the ~: The
43 comment: ... boy comment; ... ~;
44 there, ~;
2M1:6 (o) SETTING A SETTING B
2M1 409 State 1 State 2
3 AVGVSTVS AVGSTVS
11 ſafety ſafetie.
28 mountayne [both] mountaine [both]
33 VV [drop caps] W [drop cap]
2M6v 429
1 MIN. ~.-
5 Still! ~!
24 A ... rites? ~, ... ~?
34 that? ~?
42 TER. ~,
2M 3:4 (o)
2M3 413 State 1 State 2
2 MAR. MIN.
8 mention: ~;
22 choke | (him.) [turned line] choke him,
[23] [omit] That would I more. LEP. Peace, Good ARRVNTIVS.)
25 CASTOR ... POLLVX POLLVX ... HERCVLES
31 owne; ~,
32m [omit] They whisper | with Terentius
35 Mixing Mingling
41 ſtrong, ~;
42 deuotion ~;
2M4v 416
1 So so
5 fortune ~,
6 ſtrife, ~;
9 No no
13 furnace fornace
14 you, goe see. (you, goe see.)
16 ’tis. ...imposture ~- ... ~,
17m [omit] To them:
21 ſerpent. ~!
32 lord? ~!
38 vs, ~;
41 ominous: ~!
2M 1:6 (i) SETTING A SETTING B
2M1v 410 State 1 State 2 State 3
5 men. ~! ---
7 patriot patriot ---
16 begin --- beginne
17 me --- mee
22 dreame? --- ~?
28 ’gainſt --- gainſt
34 ſimplicity --- ſimplicitie
35 catch’d --- catch’t
37 ’tis --- tis
2M6 419
1 ſpeake --- ~:
7m [omit] Returnes. ---
7 that? --- ~?
11 palace; ~, ---
14 By by ---
15 Let let ---
19 ARRVNTIVS ... LEPIDVS --- ARRVNTIVS ... ~.
21 me, ~: ---
23 colleague; ~, ---
28 ſpies. --- ~
33 1 farre; ~. ---
33 profane>. --- profane.
34 now; ~, ---
35m Theſe ſound, | while the Fla- | men waſheth. Sound, while | the Flamen | waſheth. ---
35 minds: --- ~,
35 vestments --- veſtments
37 garlands: --- ~:
35 minds:
2N 2:5 (i)
2N2v 424 State 1 State 2
1 Which With
9 MACRO, ~!
2N5 429
8m The Epiſtle | is read. The Epiſtle | is read.
18 libels ~,
2O 1:6 (o)
2O1 433
5 woul would make
11 CAES CAESAR. Shout within.
2O 3:4 (o)
2O3 437
4 rise, ~:
10 For ~,
2O 1:6 (i)
2O1v 434 State 1 State 2 State 3
2 theatre; ~, ---
3 circke, ~; ---
5 ſenſitiue ſenſiue growne ---
6 furie; ~, ---
9 garlands gyrlands ---
10 reuerenced. ~! ---
19 knaues, ~; ---
28 Aſke aſke ---
32 roofe proofe ---
2O6 443
1 [‘is’ ligature] is \---
27 ſcene : And ~. ~ ~ ~

DISTRIBUTION OF F1 VARIANTS
2G 2:5 (o)
State 1: 9, 23, 24, 33
State 2: 7, 8, 10, 20, 26, 29, 30, 31, 32, 36, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 47, 48
State 3: the rest
(Missing in 19)
2I 2:5 (o)
State 1: 33
State 2: the rest
(Missing in 19)
2I 3:4 (o)
State 1: 1, 2, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, 20, 21, 29, 30, 31, 32, 37, 38, 44, 49
State 2: the rest
(Missing in 19)
2K 2:5 (o)
State 1: 7, 28, 30,
State 2: the rest
(Missing in 19)
2K 3:4 (o)
State 1: 1, 11, 20, 28, 29, 35, 39, 41, 43, 45
State 2: the rest
(Missing in 19)
2L 2:5 (o)
State 1: the rest
State 2: 2, 4, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, 21, 25, 28, 30, 32, 34, 48, 44, 45, 48, 49
(Missing in 19)
2L 3:4 (o)
State 1: the rest
State 2: 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 15, 25, 26, 30, 33, 45, 48, 49
(Missing in 19)
2L 1:6 (i)
State 1: 1, 6, 26, 28, 30, 33, 34, 46, 47, 48
State 2: the rest
(Missing in 19)
2M1:6 (o)
State 1: the rest
State 2: 14
(Missing in 19)
2M 3:4 (o)
State 1: 4, 5, 6, 8, 10, 11, 16, 18, 22, 23, 24, 26, 30, 31, 32, 33, 36, 37, 41, 42, 43, 45, 46, 48
State 2: the rest
(Missing in 19)
2M 1:6 (i)
State 1: the rest
State 2: 2, 6, 7, 9, 11, 12, 13, 15, 17, 19, 20, 21, 23, 24, 27, 28, 29, 33, 34, 35, 38, 40, 42, 44
State 3: 14
2N 2:5 (i)
State 1: 5, 9, 11, 14, 16, 20, 21, 26, 27, 29, 31, 33, 34, 36, 37, 40, 41, 46
State 2: the rest
2O 1:6 (o)
State 1: 33, 48
State 2: the rest
2O 3:4 (o)
State 1: 1, 4, 7, 9, 11, 15, 16, 18, 22, 25, 27, 30, 40, 41, 45, 46, 47
State 2: the rest
2O 1:6 (i)
State 1: 3, 10, 14, 21, 23, 27, 28, 30, 33, 35, 39, 42, 43, 45, 46, 48
State 2: the rest
State 3: 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16, 18, 19, 20

COPIES COLLATED
1. Huntington Library, 62100
2. Huntington Library, 62101
3. Huntington Library, 62104
4. Huntington Library, 62105
5. Huntington Library, 495467 (Ford Copy ‘A’)
6. Folger Shakespeare Library, STC 14751, Copy 1
7. Folger Shakespeare Library, STC 14751, Copy 2
8. Folger Shakespeare Library, STC 14751, Copy 3
9. Folger Shakespeare Library, STC 14751, Copy 4
10. Folger Shakespeare Library, STC 14751, Copy 5
11. Folger Shakespeare Library, STC 14751, Copy 6
12. Folger Shakespeare Library, STC 14751.2, copy 1
13. Folger Shakespeare Library, STC 14751.2, copy 2
14. Library of Congress, Yorke W.4.4
15. Gants Personal Copy, Fenton bookplate
16. Gants Personal Copy, Everard Home bookplate
17. British Library, G. 11630 (Grenville copy)
18. Boston Public Library, XfG .3811 .5
19. Boston Public Library, XfG .3811 .5A
20. Boston University, YPR 2600 .C16
21. Wellesley College, qx - English Poetry
22. Bodleian Library, Douce I. 302
23. Huntington Library, 499968
24. Huntington Library, 499967
25. Huntington Library, 499971
26. Huntington Library, 606199
27. Huntington Library, 606202
28. Huntington Library, 606200
29. Huntington Library, 606574
30. Huntington Library, 606576
31. Huntington Library, 606599
32. Huntington Library, 606579
33. Huntington Library, 606582
34. Huntington Library, 606583
35. Brown University, Providence, PR 2600 - 1616
36. Texas Christian University, Fort Worth, Lewis PR2600 1616
37. University of Texas, Austin, Ah/ J738/ +B616a
38. University of Texas, Austin, Ah/ J738/ +B616ab
39. University of Texas, Austin, Ah/ J738/ +B616ad
40. University of Texas, Austin, Ah/ J738/ +B616af
41. University of Texas, Austin, Ah/ J738/ +B616ah
42. University of Texas, Austin, Ah/ J738/ +B616ak
43. University of Texas, Austin, Ah/ J738/ +B616am
44. University of Texas, Austin, AH/ J738/ +B616an
45. University of Texas, Austin, Wh/ J738/ +B616a
46. University of Texas, Austin, Pforz. 559
47. University of Texas, Austin, Woodward-Ruth 181
48. University of Texas, Austin, Stark 6431
49. University of Virginia, E 1616 .J64

Login to CEWBJ

×