This essay deals with some features of the third volume of the 1640-1 edition of Jonson’s Works . (The designation ‘third’ is adopted here for the sake of bibliographical convenience: it refers to the texts which were printed for the first time in 1640-1, then published together with the texts printed but left unissued in 1631 (F2(2)) . It concentrates on four particular aspects. It attempts to give a general account of the volume showing how it follows or changes the procedures of the printing of other volumes of the Works; it discusses ways in which the volume carries out intentions Jonson might have had with regard to its publication; it goes some way towards placing this volume in the context of other works printed in the same printing house, that of John Dawson, Jr.; and it proposes a narrative for the production.
The circumstances of F2(3) differ from those of the earlier volumes, for Jonson did not live to take part in or monitor its production. His direct influence on it must therefore have been more remote than the earlier work. And yet there do remain distinct possibilities that parts of it were set from his autograph or from copies he had corrected in preparation for this collected edition, and to this extent Jonson’s intentions are detectable in a number of ways. It does seem likely that he intended to publish a third collection and he may well have started to work on it. The critical problem is to assess how far this posthumous edition is faithful to his intentions.
Participants
The printing of the third volume of the Works was first attributed to John Dawson Jr. by D. F. McKenzie (1972) . The basis of this was that a number of print items in the volume can be found in other works printed by Dawson. The chief of these were the factotum on B1, a damaged upper case H (3A1 and 3I3v), and a number of other display letters. In the following account the attribution is made even more secure, especially with regard to damaged or imperfect italic type, and the watermarks.
Dawson, whose father John was also a printer from 1613 until his death in 1635, was active in the trade between 1634 and 1648, the probable year of his death. He was clothed on 29 March 1637 and from that date his annual output can be estimated from the surviving work attributed to him in STC, though it is always possible that some is no longer known. The annual totals of the extant titles he produced are as follows:
1637 (9) 1638 (27) 1639 (29) 1640 (32) 1641 (21) 1642 (10) 1643 (11) 1644 (7) 1645 (8) 1646 (14) 1647 (12) 1648 (9) 1649 (2)
As some of these were small pamphlets containing only four pages, we should also take into account the annual totals of edition sheets for the years 1637 to 1642 which are:
1637 186.5 1638 222.8 1639 772.33 1640 721.28 1641 362.33 1642 61.575
(These figures are compiled without reference to the size of the type on each sheet. A checklist of titles arranged by STC numbers, together with estimated totals of edition sheets, appears in Appendix 1.)
From this information it is clear that Jonson’s third volume was printed at the time when Dawson was at his busiest, the years 1639-41. It would seem that he was in a position at this time to mobilise considerable resources of manpower and equipment. Perhaps his output at this point is comparable to that of William Stansby who was producing 850 edition sheets per annum when he worked on the first folio (Bland, 1998b, 4) .
The subject matter of Dawson’s books is varied. The bulk of it consists of works reflecting matters of a theological nature and religious exegesis, commentary and controversy. This includes sermons, catechisms and books of psalms. Besides these he also carried official printing of almanacs for the Stationers Company spread over a number of years. Many of these items were quite small. Dawson’s production of what might be termed literary texts was rather limited. He printed a translation of some stories by Cervantes (1640). His poetic volumes included a translation of Ovid’s Heroical Epistles (1639), and the Poems of Humphrey Mill (1639) and Thomas Carew (1640, reprinted 1642). There were two dramatic texts: Shirley’s Arcadia (1640) and a book of plays by Thomas Nabbes (1639).
Dawson printed the third volume for Thomas Walkley, the bookseller. Walkley himself was established by 1618, and he became embroiled in a dispute in 1621-2 over the quarto of Othello (Honigmann, 1996, 22-3) . He continued to be active until 1658. His interest in the publication of Jonson’s work can be traced as far back as the quartos of Callipolis (1630) and Chloridia (1631), which were both printed for him. His entrepreneurial activities and his later legal dispute over the Jonson third volume, following his purchase of Jonson’s papers from Sir Kenelm Digby are described and substantiated elsewhere (see Eugene Giddens’s essay on the legal dispute over Jonson’s copyrights). Dawson’s association with Walkley involved several works in the years 1640-2, as will be seen from Appendix 1, but there is very little sign of contact after that. Most of his work was apparently for other clients. In 1640, when he must have been at work on Jonson, he also printed Carew’s Poems and some short catalogues of the peerage and the nobility for him. Some of the volumes he produced were comparable in size and scope with the Jonson volume (599 pages, 150 edition sheets), as were the following works in folio, which may have been in production concurrently with the work on Jonson:
D. Fealty et. al., Threnikos (1639, 916 pages, 229 edition
sheets)
M. de Cervantes, Novells (1640, 324 pages, 82.5
edition sheets)
Biondi, Civil Warres (1641, 337 pages, 84.25
edition sheets)
R. Brathwaite’s Gentleman (1641, 506 pages,
126.5 edition sheets)
It is also worth noting that in works like Christian Offices (1637) and Brathwaite’s Gentleman (1641) Dawson’s printing shop handled highly complex printing tasks requiring skills comparable with those manifested in some of the annotated pages in Jonson’s masques. Similarly much skill was required for the intriguing volume of needlework patterns in Needle’s Excellency (1639).
Three other people concerned with the third volume ought to be mentioned. The contrasting work of two anonymous compositors working for Dawson can be identified in some parts of the volume. Nothing is now ascertainable about their lives but their work in the volume will be described below. The contribution of the third person is more oblique or indirect. John Benson, who was active as a printer until 1667, entered the field as a sort of rival to Walkley in that he sought to benefit from Jonson’s literary legacy by publishing some of his texts. As an apprentice of Richard Allott, for whom volume two was printed, he had an earlier association with Jonson’s work. In order to continue this he accumulated manuscripts of Jonson’s works and he made an initial entry of two poems in the Stationers’ Register on 4 November 1639, at a time when he is thought to have been at his most active. These and further acquisitions led to the publication of his quarto Execration against Vulcan with divers Epigrams (1639: STC14771) and his duodecimo Q. Horatius Flaccus: His Art of Poetry (1640: STC13798). This enterprise is significant for the bibliographical study of the third volume in that the texts printed for Benson (by John Okes) may act as independent witnesses and give some alternative readings which are of both negative and positive value in establishing copy texts for the third volume and in settling some individual details. For further information about these and their interaction with the texts of the third volume see the introductions to The Underwood and the individual masques. Benson’s reputation has improved somewhat since the work of the Oxford editors, and it is now thought that he made considerable efforts to present an accurate text and in revising his work. Without Benson’s intervention our understanding of the production of the third volume would be somewhat the poorer.
Characteristics
Walkley’s legal dispute with Benson and his associate Richard Crooke bulks large in the history of the third volume. For some reason he failed to register his rights to the Jonson’s papers with the Stationers, an omission which cost him dearly and had a substantial effect on the ultimate state of the third volume. His omission left open the way for Benson and his smaller collections. The difficulties arising from this omission may also account for the absence of the title page. The contents were printed in three sections, as may be seen from Greg’s collation:
2o, B-Q4 R2 S-X4 Y2 Z-2O4 2P2 2Q4, 2A-P4 Q2 R-V4, 3A-K4 L2 M-R4
[290 leaves, paged 1-292, 23-122 [123-32] 133-55, 31-132, misnumbering 93 as 87, 285 as 283, 250 as 52, 280-9 as 70-9, 2151 as 143, and 2154 as 146.]
(Note: For the last section the quire signatures are in italic.)
The first sequence contains all the masques not in the editions of the first volume (F1, and F2(1)), The Underwood, followed by Welbeck, Bolsover and the sketch for Mortimer; the second has the last three plays, The Magnetic Lady, A Tale of a Tub, and The Sad Shepherd; and the third comprises Horace, Grammar and Discoveries. When it came to binding the volume these three sections were normally kept intact, but they were combined in different orders. It is clear from these signatures that there is no opening section to the volume, the signature of which would have been quire A. In it we might have found a title-page, together with introductory material such as a preface, a contents page and dedicatory material, perhaps in the form of poems, as found in the first folio. It is interesting to note that Benson’s duodecimo edition of some of the poems does contain some dedicatory poems. There is no evidence that such a quire was ever printed for the third volume, but since the masques section begins with quire B it is likely that it was planned to follow the proposed A quire. If there was a decision to delay the printing of this first quire it may well be parallel to that for the printing of the title quire of The Sad Shepherd noted by Giddens (2003, 64). Presumably Walkley despaired of being able to include this opening quire and allowed the copies, in which he had invested a considerable sum of money by his own account, to be released and bound. In the absence of a suitable title page, some copies of the third volume were bound up with the second volume with the latter’s title page for Richard Meighen (1631), referring only to Bartholomew Fair, The Staple of News and The Devil is an Ass, at the beginning. This clumsy arrangement has given rise to misunderstanding by makers of catalogues ever since. Otherwise copies were bound without a title page, sometimes with T. Harper’s 1641 reprint of The Devil Is an Ass (Wing J 1011). In these bindings combining the second and third volumes it was quite common to place the plays group first so that they followed directly on from the three plays in volume two.
For the individual parts of the volume a degree of uniformity was established with regard to their title pages. These were undoubtedly based on the pattern developed for the first folio, as it appears, for example, for Catiline, Epigrams, and the King’s Entertainment. The form appears seven times in the third volume, the first being for The Underwood (erroneously printed as Underwoods, without the definite article). It is followed for Mortimer His Fall, in the first section; Horace, His Art of Poetry, The English Grammar, and Discoveries in the second; and the three plays in the third. On each of these the title is centred in large capitals with a rule beneath. Below this there is usually a brief descriptive phrase and then the author’s name in the spelling BEN: IOHNSON throughout. On all these pages except Horace there follows a Latin motto with its author’s name. As we may well presume that these quotations are Jonson’s own choices, it would follow that he had gone some way towards envisaging this feature of the volume, even though it is highly unlikely that he would have approved the spelling of his name. Below the motto there is another rule beneath which there appears the date of printing in roman capitals. All these give the date 1640 except The Sad Shepherd and Discoveries, which have 1641, a difference of some importance for the history of the production of the volume. It is also notable that this last line is printed in two ways. In Mortimer and Horace the word ‘Printed’ is in upper and lower case and it is followed by the date in large roman capitals, but for the other title pages it is the practice to put ‘LONDON,’ in capitals above the line for the date, and the size of the type is uniformly smaller. These differences may be an indication that different compositors set the pages even though they were attempting to conform to a pattern.
Unlike the first folio (at 4F2) there is no title page for the Masques, which begin on B1 with Christmas. The treatment of this first title is rather similar to that used for the rest. However, it reveals a blatant error, or an embarrassing shortage of type, in the selection of a rather conspicuous upper case Q of the wrong font, it being smaller than the rest of the title. The title is in large capitals with smaller ones for the brief supplementary details and then there is the date of its performance. Perhaps because this is the first masque, a factotum is used at the beginning of the text. All this is put into about one third of the first page and after a rule the text begins immediately below with the first entry. This is clearly modelled on the practice in the first folio for some of the individual masques and entertainments, such as the Masque of Queens (4K5) and Oberon (4N2). Most of the other masques in the third volume, as well as Bolsover and Welbeck, are introduced in the same way, centring the key words in large capitals and fitting the title and place and date of performance (not always accurate) into up to half of the first page. There are two exceptions: Lovers Made Men and The Gypsies Metamorphosed each have a full page title, though the former does not actually give the name by which the masque is usually known. Jonson’s name appears on only three of the masques in the third volume. In Pan’s Anniversary it is preceded by Inigo Jones, but this was reversed for Love’s Triumph through Callipolis and Chloridia, a casus belli. The spelling adopted is ‘Iohnson’ in all three, and this is remarkable in that for the quarto of Love’s Triumph (1630), from which the text in the third volume is derived, it is ‘Ionson’, a form which presumably Jonson did approve for that printing. It would seem that ‘Iohnson’ was Dawson’s decision for the whole of his volume. Nevertheless there can be no doubt that the management of the title pages was modelled directly on the first folio.
There was some attempt to arrange the masques chronologically in order of performance. This was broadly successful but there were some errors, especially with regard to Pan’s Anniversary which was mis-dated by four years (Butler, 2003, 56).
The general layout of the third volume is conspicuously less elaborate than that for the first folio and for the second volume of the Works. There is a distinct absence of set-piece illumination and of decorated capitals at the beginning of individual plays and masques. But as we have seen with the title pages, there was some attempt to unify the volume. Though they are rather crude and not very straight, there are two ruled lines at the top of nearly every page enclosing running titles and page numbers as in the first folio. The numbering is prone to error, as Greg’s collation indicates. Outer margins, which are not separated by vertical rules as they are for John Beale’s presentation of the three plays in F2(2), are frequently used for references, stage directions and other extraneous matter. These items are usually printed in smaller type than the main texts. In certain masques, such as Augurs, the extra material has to be spread across the width of the page in large blocks because the annotation is copious. In these cases the typography becomes very complex. Though Dawson and his compositors made many decisions for themselves, there is no doubt that the layout was meant to reflect in some measure that evolved by Jonson for the first folio, however inadequately.
For the headings of the poems there is some departure from the practice of the first folio. Here there is a liberal use of italics, whereas the first folio has large and small capitals for individual poems. Spacing and indentation are considered and at times the effect of individual pages is remarkably clean and well balanced, as in the pages containing Charis (Z3-2A2v) and the Execration (2F1-2F3v).
In the printing of the masques capitals are generally used for the names of speakers, following the convention Jonson had adopted earlier. In the plays section, however, these appear in italics, surely a new departure, and a practice which differs from that for the plays in the second volume. Interestingly Harper’s 1641 reprint of the Devil is an Ass also uses italics for speech heads. Nevertheless Jonson’s underlying principles for the use of italics in the body of the texts are generally followed. In all probability the plays were set from manuscripts – not necessarily, but possibly autographs – in which these conventions were systematically preserved. Italics are used for proper names of people and places, verse quotations, Latin phrases and other foreign words. There is something of a change in the headings for each scene. In the first folio the names are usually in roman capitals and for this Jonson is thought to have followed an edition of Plautus he is known to have possessed. His policy in regard to this was very strict and he rarely allowed any other words to appear in such headings. Where he does he seems to have preferred italics for words which were not names, as in the initial headings for Cynthia’s Revels and Catiline. Obviously it would have been a major task to restructure these items for the printing and it does not seem to have been attempted. But it is in items such as these that we can see the influence of Jonson himself being preserved, even though he was no longer there to exercise it as personally. We can add that a list of characters is a regular feature for the plays of the first folio. For the late plays there are some minor differences in the layout of these, but there is no doubt that the practice for them follows the earlier precedent. It is clear therefore that many aspects of the layout used by Dawson are directly related to the practice in the first folio. Possibly Jonson had marked up the manuscripts to this effect, but it is equally possible that Dawson and his compositors were able to refer to a copy of the first folio when they needed guidance.
Jonson’s practices with regard to punctuation and spelling are also reflected in the volume. In both these we can see some of his conventions were followed but manifestly not always meticulously or with understanding. In spelling in particular the preferences of the compositors sometimes obscure what must have been in the originals; but it is also true that many distinctive Jonson spellings are to be found throughout the volume. Nevertheless there are some distinct movements towards modernisation of spelling, particularly in the use of lower case ‘j’ and ‘u’ and there are a number of other changes to individual words such as ‘then’ becoming ‘than’ and ‘Poules’ becoming ‘Paul’s’ (H&S, 9.88).
Some changes, however, may have been occasioned by considerations of expense. In general the pages of the third volume are rather more compressed. Compared with the second volume there is less space between scenes in the plays, for example. The number of lines on each page was increased from around 47 in the first folio to a norm of about 50, and up to 53 at times. (There are 53 lines in 2D1 of The Magnetic Lady.) The need to save space might also have accounted for the change in speech heads from capitals to italics noted above.
Some Production Features
In this section we shall look at some particular aspects of the process of producing the volume. These include the copy texts, the watermarks and the paper supply, headlines and skeletons, the work of individual compositors, the interruption to the printing, some aspects of the type and the questions of proof reading and the accuracy of the text.
The copy used by Dawson must have been of very mixed quality, far from the alleged ‘true and perfect copies’ which Walkley claimed, perhaps using a legal formula, in his bill of 1640 to have purchased from Kenelm Digby. We may suppose that there were two main types. One would be the items which had previously been printed, for the most part with Jonson’s authority and at an earlier stage subject to whatever scrutiny he was able or willing to impose. Textual commentary on some of the individual parts shows that even with these there was often a revision or editing which led to changes from the first printed version. The second is the possibility that there were authentic manuscripts approved by Jonson, perhaps autographs or copies he had ordered. It seems that the reflection of Jonson’s spelling and punctuation in parts of the volume can only be the result of direct influence embodied in copy close to his wishes. There are many details pointing to this conclusion, especially in the plays. It is perhaps sufficient to refer here to the emergence of characteristic Jonsonian features like the frequent use of i’th’ and o’th’ and similar elided forms, many Latin spellings such as malitious and the use of digraphs which preserve Latin vowels in them as in such words as Cæsar, the frequency of hyphenation in certain words such as gentle-man and bride-groom, and the conventions for the use of italics already mentioned.
The incidence of watermarks in the third volume helps to establish the chronology of the printing and to integrate it with other work Dawson was doing during the period of its production. Their use suggests how the paper supply was employed. The fifteen which have been isolated are described in Appendix 2, together with some references to their origin. Most of them, as was commonly the case, seem to have come from France. The numbering of the watermarks used here is for convenience and bears no direct relation to the suggested chronology. The distribution of the watermarks by quires is:
| First section | ||||||||||||||||
| Quires B to 2Q [Masques through Underwood, signed continuously] | ||||||||||||||||
| Masques | 5 | 6 | 9 | 10 | ||||||||||||
| Und. | 4 | 11 | 12 | 13 | ||||||||||||
| Second section | ||||||||||||||||
| Quires 2A-V [Plays] | ||||||||||||||||
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 7 | 8 | 12 | 14 | 15 | |||||||||
| Sad Shep. | 15 | |||||||||||||||
| Third section | ||||||||||||||||
| Quires 3A-R [Horace group] | ||||||||||||||||
| 1 | 3 | 12 | 14 | 15 | ||||||||||||
| Disc. | 2 | 14 | 15 | |||||||||||||
This indicates that most of the watermarks in the masques and Underwood do not appear in the other parts of the volume (4, 5, 6, 9, 10, 11, 13) and that six of the watermarks in the plays group are the same as those in parts of the Horace group (1, 2, 3, 12, 14, 15). The plays group has two unique to it (7, 8). From this one may suggest that the second section was not started until the first was complete: and that at this point a new paper supply was brought into use. Taken with the evidence about skeletons below this seems likely The incidence of watermarks in the plays and Horace groups does not necessarily mean that the plays group, or part of it, were being set simultaneously with the Horace group. The latter could have followed on, still employing the same paper stock but here the likelihood of simultaneity is higher. At the end of the plays and the Horace groups new watermarks appear in A Tale of a Tub, The Sad Shepherd and Discoveries (14, 15). This may reflect a break in the work to which we shall return below.
If we consider the incidence of these watermarks in other works printed by Dawson between 1637 and 1642 we find some further indication of chronology. The following shows the years in which the watermarks in question have been observed in other works he printed together with the STC or Wing number (The titles of these can be identified in Appendix 1.):
| 1637 | 9 | 4283.2 | |||
| 1638 | 12 | 5904 | 13048 | ||
| 1639 | 1 | 552 | |||
| 6 | 1227 | 21056 | 22493 | ||
| 11 | 17911 | 20247 | |||
| 12 | 20542 | 20660 | 24048 | ||
| 1640 | 1 | 12875 | |||
| 4 | 23551 | ||||
| 6 | 1126.3 | 21775 | 22403 | 23514 | |
| 12 | 23303 | 23311 | |||
| 1641 | 6 | B4262 | |||
| 12 | F1515 | ||||
| 1642 | 12 | A3956 |
(In all these years watermarks have been found in Dawson books which do not appear in the third volume.) From this we note that 9 had been used for some time before the third volume; 1, 4, and 6 were in use concurrently with it; and 12 is used throughout. Neither of the two later ones (14, 15) has come to light in other volumes printed by Dawson).
Recent work on the skeletons used in the printing has helped to illuminate a major interruption to the printing. Substantially the same two skeletons are used throughout most of the volume. There are very few modifications to their repeated use. There are in fact four headlines, which we can designate A, B, C, and D. These are combined in the following three ways:
A and C are conjugate as are B and D in quires C D E F G H I K L M N O P Q R; and in 3A 3B 3C 3E 3F 3G 3H 3I 3K.
This comprises most of the masques and the bulk of the separately signed Horace group.
C and D; A and B in quires T V X Y 2B 2N.
This comprises the end of the masques and the beginning of Underwood.
C and B; A and D in quires 2A 2C 2D 2E 2F 2G 2H 2I 2K 2L 2M 2O
This comprises the rest of Underwood.
The changes in the skeletons because of wear and tear support the proposition that the masques were printed first, followed by Underwood. The arrangement of the quire signatures, which run continuously through the masques and into Underwood, may sustain this view of continuity. As we have seen from the collation, new starts were made in the signatures for the play sequence and separately for the sequence which begins with Horace. In spite of this, the same skeletons were used at the beginning of the Horace group up to the end of the Grammar. For the plays group new skeletons not appearing elsewhere in the volume were brought into use suggesting that at the beginning at least simultaneous work by the compositors might have necessitated alternatives. The headlines in these skeletons, designated E, F,G, and H (with a variant I), combine as:
E and F; G and H in quires 2B 2C 2D 2E 2F 2G 2H 2I
E and F; G and I in quires 2K 2L 2N 2P, where the variant appears.
The cause for bringing in these new skeletons is difficult to determine. It may have been external pressure requiring that the printing, or the type setting, which had probably been going on for a year or so, be speeded up. Alternatively it may have been circumstances internal to the printing house, such as the increased availability of compositors: new workmen perhaps, or a slackening of business which freed workers from other tasks.
If this account is correct, the treatment of Discoveries is somewhat anomalous and it helps to reveal some of the chronology of the printing. Its signatures, beginning with quire M, follow on from those of the Grammar, but it is set using skeletons which are the same as those for Tub. As Giddens has demonstrated (2003, 63), these must be later than those in the plays because of their deterioration, indicating that the printing of Discoveries was begun after their completion. For The Sad Shepherd there is another anomaly in that it too was begun with a new set of skeletons even though its signatures show that it was meant to follow the other two plays in the final product. Once again the reason for the change of skeletons is hard to determine and open to speculation. Perhaps the copy came late and there was a discontinuity in the workshop necessitating the setting up of the new skeletons.
Whatever the cause or causes behind these circumstances, the printing of both these items was subsequently interrupted, as Giddens has also shown from typographical evidence (2003, 64). When it was resumed new skeletons were employed for both: the remaining parts of Discoveries (quire R) and The Sad Shepherd (parts of quires R and S, and quires T and V). For the former there was also an increase in the width of the compositor’s stick and an increase in the number of lines per page (2003, 64). In the light of the dates on the title pages of these two items, which are 1641 rather than 1640 as in the other parts of the volume, it is highly probable that the interruption affecting both parts occurred at the end of 1640 or early in 1641. The most likely cause for the interruption was Walkley’s legal dispute during which the sheets of volume three he had already had printed were seized (see Giddens’s essay outlining this dispute). There is also the possibility that increasing political tension was a factor.
From these features of the watermarks and skeletons we may now offer a summary narrative as shown in this diagram:
| Chronology runs from left to right. The interruption occurs before the far right column. | |||||
| Masques | Und. | ||||
| 5 6 9 10 | |||||
| 5 11 12 13 | ______ | ________ | _____ | ||
| Horace | Grammar | S.Shep | |||
| 12 | 1 2 3 | 15 | |||
| ________ | _____ | ||||
| Mag Lady | Tub Disc. | Disc. | |||
| 1 2 3 7 8 14 | (2 14) | 15 | |||
| Skeletons | |||||
| ____________ | ______________ | ||||
| Masques Und. | Horace Grammar | ||||
| A B C D* | A B C D* | ||||
| ________ | _____ | ||||
| Mag Lady | Tub Disc | Disc | |||
| E F G H* | E F G I* | M (III) º | |||
| _____ | _____ | ||||
| S.Shep | S Shep | ||||
| K L | N O | ||||
| (IV V)º | (VI VII) º | ||||
| *These headlines are paired in various combinations º Roman numbering as in Giddens (2003), 61-2 |
|||||
The division of the volume into three separated signed sequences of quires does not give an adequate idea of the order of its production. The masques were printed first, followed by Underwood. Two groups of paper supply were used sequentially for these. The printing of Horace and Grammar continued with the same set of skeletons, and one watermark (12) indicates that some of the earlier paper supply was still available. However additional paper stock now came into use for this section. When a new beginning was made for the The Magnetic Lady and Tub sequence new skeletons were set up, and these, though deteriorating, continued in use for the first part of Discoveries, which was eventually placed in the third signed sequence. The work on these drew upon the same paper supply as that initiated for Horace and Grammar. This means that the two groups could have been worked on simultaneously. That different skeletons were needed increases this possibility. However there is a new start for The Sad Shepherd, bringing in a completely new set of skeletons and at this point there was a new paper supply (Watermark 15). It is possible, but not inevitable that the workers who had completed the masques to Grammar run now began The Sad Shepherd, while the other group continued to work through The Magnetic Lady to Discoveries (part) run. Then came the interruption, after which the paper supply already started for The Sad Shepherd was drawn upon again for the conclusion of this play and that of Discoveries. New skeletons had to be set up because the old ones had been dispersed in the interval. There is nothing in this to negate the possibility that The Magnetic Lady to Discoveries sequence was printed simultaneously with the Horace to Grammar run, and the use of a common paper supply for them both makes this likely.
It seems likely that at least two compositors were employed on this volume, though the data so far available does not offer a comprehensive account. Such a proposition is not at all surprising considering the amount of work Dawson’s shop was producing at the time as shown in Appendix 1. There is a fuller discrimination between the two in the Introduction to A Tale of a Tub, but here it is necessary to recall that there are two contrasting methods of work, which indicate different participants. Compositor A is by far the more careful, consistent and exacting. His work has a very neat appearance and is well balanced on the page. He is particularly accurate over the use of spaces, and he clearly counted these so precisely that the speech heads and the spaces on either side of them are precisely aligned vertically. He also allows a generous and regular amount of space for the speech head where a new speech begins within a line. By contrast compositor B is inconsistent in these matters, with the result that the vertical effect of accurate spacing and the general neatness of the pages are not to be seen. There are also some minor differences in the spacing between the names of characters in the massed entries at the beginning of scenes, and in the matching and aligning of brackets. These differences run consistently through all the three plays, and it is most likely that these two compositors worked these plays entirely. Very often they each worked on conjugate pairs of leaves, though this is not always the case. It is not possible to extend the discrimination between the two compositors throughout the volume, though there are some pages where there is a comparable degree of accuracy in spacing and layout and these may well be the work of compositor A. Examples of such work are found in the Underwood, as in the careful counting for indentation on 2A4 and 2F1. But it would be surprising if there were indeed only two compositors at work on so large a work and one whose production extended over such a long period.
A study of the occurrence of some individual letters has yielded some information of how the some of the type was used. This investigation has concentrated upon lower case italic letters and it gives further indications about the relationship between the third volume and other books produced by Dawson. It corroborates the instances of his using individual type in the third volume and in other books noted by McKenzie, as above. It would obviously be possible to make a more extensive enquiry ranging over the whole of the typography used by Dawson, but so far this has not been attempted.
The following italic letters have been traced in the third volume and in other books by Dawson. As will be seen by the brief description of each individual type given here they were either damaged or when they were actually used in the press they failed to make the correct mark on the page. The types observed are:
b top of ascender bent right
d1 top of ascender bent sharply left
d2 top of ascender vertical
d3 main ascender curved from top to bottom
f lower tail bent into a curl
h1 break in ascender
h2 top of ascender curled to right
l top bent to left
ll second l turned to left in double type
s long s with lower tail bent into a curl
) or ( with bend or indentation in middle
The places in which these type have been found are summarized in Appendix 3. In several cases where the totals for sections of the third volume are high it has been found that the specific type appears with considerable regularity in one quire after another. Presumably the type was broken up after each quire and reused in the next. Specific cases of this are the appearances of
(d1) in the masques:
C2, D3v, G3, I3, K2v, K4, O2v, Q1v, R1v, T4, V1v, V4v, X3v;
(d2) in the masques:
B1, B3, C1v, D3, F1v, F3, G2v, H4v, K3v, M4, N1, N4, O2v, Q1, Q2, V3, X1(2), X3, X4v;
and in the plays:
H4, I4v, L3v, M1, M2, N1, N1v, N4v, O2v, P2, P2, R4v, S3, T3, V4.
Another surprising thing about this analysis is that some of these anomalous types were used again and again over a long period as can be seen from the dates in which they appeared in Dawson’s books in Appendix 3.
The extent to which corrections were made to the text in the printing house is closely related to the accuracy of the texts within the volume. As with so many other aspects discussed here, this seems very variable. Editors preparing texts for the present edition have had the opportunity to examine a significantly larger number of copies of the third volume than were available to the Oxford editors and to detect a correspondingly greater number of press variants. The wider base for such observations does help us to revalue the quality of Dawson’s work and in doing so it becomes apparent that although there are some definable shortcomings there is much that suggests care and a concern to achieve good standards. The production process of the individual texts shows considerable variation, and the printers were sometimes hampered by the quality of the copy they had to work from. The number of compositors at work is also a consideration. If, as seems likely, the plays group was set concurrently with parts of the Horace group, and there were two compositors working on the plays, as we have suggested, it seems inevitable that there must have been additional worker(s) setting type for the Horace group. As regards the correctness of all these compositors, we need to consider the press variants in conjunction with the uncorrected errors observed by the present editors in individual texts, and here again we find a variety in the quality of achievement. It does appear to have been standard throughout the volume to make stop press corrections fairly early in the print run. In a few instances, but really these are quite rare in proportion, individual pages or conjugates were corrected twice.
Four major sections of the third volume can be treated separately since they show somewhat similar characteristics within each: the masques, Underwood, the plays and the Horace group.
In the masques our understanding of the printing is often made more complicated by the presence of the earlier quartos. In three cases, Time Vindicated, Neptune’s Triumph and The Fortunate Isles, these were reprinted closely, and as it seems likely that the earlier printed versions were subject to Jonson’s scrutiny. However, in some of the reprints quarto errors persist and obvious errors were also introduced into these texts with the result that that substantial numbers of uncorrected errors are now to be found. This may be compounded by the fact that there were very few stop press corrections in the texts of the masques. One significant feature in Wales is that the Welsh spellings caused the compositors some confusion. In Pleasure Reconciled to Virtue the copy was a manuscript in the hand of Ralph Crane and in this case a considerable number of alterations was made by the printers in punctuation, probably because of his idiosyncrasies.
All three of the editors of the F2(3) plays agree that the printing is generally accurate and of good quality: there is nothing comparable to the carelessness noticed by John Creaser in the work of John Beale on Bartholomew Fair. This higher quality is reflected in the number of press variants and the uncorrected errors. In The Magnetic Lady there are 81 press variants on 28 pages. This is a sizeable number and yet the fact that they were put right suggests that a good deal of concern was being exercised. This play’s editor, Helen Ostovich, has noticed 11 uncorrected errors, a surprisingly small number. The situation for Tub is broadly similar. As it happens 81 press variants are also noted here, spread through 20 pages. The total of uncorrected errors noted is 17, of which six are changes to speech heads. In both these plays most of the corrections are on conjugate leaves, giving rise to the view that once an error was noted that there was closer scrutiny of that particular page and its conjugate. The changes are generally to be found in correcting typographical errors in spelling, type and punctuation, and very few indeed of them have much effect on the meaning of the texts. It seems likely that there was very little reference to the copy texts in this process. In both plays there are a few places where the three states of individual readings indicate that there were two phases of correction. This is rare but it is probably an indication of careful revision. It should be added in relation to the two compositors noted above that there do seem to be rather more stop press corrections on pages which can be attributed to compositor B than to his colleague. This may indicate that he was less experienced.
The number of press variants in The Sad Shepherd is remarkably low: only two have been identified. Eleven uncorrected errors have been noted and most of these are localized into quire S, perhaps because of the interruption to the printing at this point. Hence this play too seems to have been printed with some care, a conclusion at variance with that of the Oxford editors.
The printing of Underwood is rather more complex. It was much affected by the complexity and quality of the copy available to Dawson, which differs greatly and was of uneven reliability. This is discussed in the Textual Introduction to the poems, but here we need to note that Jonson’s wishes are often quite hard to determine in the texts of the poems in the third volume. Often there is little conclusive evidence that the copy closely reflected Jonson’s final intentions, even if this could now be determined and even though we cannot doubt that he did make some efforts towards preparing texts. Indeed the texts of some of the poems in the third volume have had to be emended in the light of other witnesses, as the editor makes plain. There were also plenty of typographical errors in the printing of these poems. Some vigorous attempts were made to correct them, there being 75 press variants in this part of the volume. Of these 56 appear on conjugate leaves. As with the plays, most of these corrections are of punctuation and typographical irregularities. Four of the formes were opened twice to make corrections, again suggesting a degree of conscientiousness in the workmanship. A few are obvious errors of sense but it does not seem to have been the practice to proof the texts against the copy.
With the Horace group the problems of the compositors become rather different. In Horace and Discoveries there is a good deal of Latin, and, as with the Welsh noted above, this presents difficulties because of its unfamiliarity. The list of books printed by Dawson in Appendix 1 contains very few titles requiring Latin. Only nine press variants have been identified in Horace, three of them being on conjugate leaves, and it appears that this forme was corrected twice. The editor notes that the corrections to the Latin part of the text are confined to punctuation. In Discoveries there are 66 press corrections and it is notable that here 60 of them are on conjugate leaves. One pair contains as many as 17 and 11 press variants on the two pages. This was one of the texts affected by the interruption. The total for uncorrected errors noted by the editor is 104, of which 53 occur after line 2005.
For the Grammar it appears the difficulties encountered by the printers in other parts of the volume were more severe, especially because of their unfamiliarity with Latin. Derek Britton, editor of the Grammar in the present edition, has confirmed that there are many errors which must be compositorial as they would appear to be obviously wrong to anyone with a knowledge of the language. This is compounded by the number of errors in diacritics for the classical languages. There are also many errors in the English parts of the text, some of them perhaps occasioned by the difficulties presented by the specialized layout required to illustrate grammatical points by tables and lists. Such errors include confusion over upper and lower case and some punctuation. It is noticeable however that the compositors imposed their own spelling on some of Jonson’s regular practice, as in their frequent use of dipthong for diphthong and syllable for syllabe. The amount of press correction is not high. Usually the changes are made fairly early in the print run, but it is noticeable that on two pages the errors were not put right until about half way through (see the two states of F3 and G4). However Britton has also pointed out that some of the uncorrected errors in this particular work may be attributed to Jonson’s own mistakes in Latin and to his inaccurate copying from English poetic texts.
On balance therefore it seems that the volume as a whole can be regarded as a workmanlike achievement and that the process of production was marked by some conscientious practice. But such an enterprise was bound to be beset with some difficulties and these were not always successfully overcome. Jonson’s intentions are reflected in the volume in many ways, and to some extent it was conceived and executed as a match for the other volumes of his work. Whether the pot is half full or half empty is finally a matter of opinion and it is not at all certain that Jonson would have been satisfied with the result.
Later history
For all its shortcomings and irregularities, the third volume is nevertheless an entity, a production by a particular combination of men in a particular set of circumstances. As such it has a certain history and we can trace it for a number of years afterwards. Walkley registered the volume with the Stationers ultimately on 17 September 1658, some time after the legal dispute was over. It seems likely that his reason for so doing was to clear the way to allowing him to transfer the third volume to Henry Moseley, which he did on 20 November following. Moseley apparently had another edition printed as he advertised it in 1660 (Greg, 1939, 1082). If this was indeed the case, this edition has not survived. Moseley’s widow transferred the volume to Henry Herringman on 19 August 1667. There follows another advertisement of an edition printed for Herringman between 1668-79, but this is somewhat problematic. If there was one it has not survived. It is a little surprising to contemplate that both Moseley and Herringman thought it worthwhile to print editions even in the circumstances more favourable to the theatre after the Restoration. However it was Herringman who was responsible for the one-volume edition of 1692 (F3). It is interesting that several of the seventeenth-century items cited by Greg and used for this account give the work the convenient title ‘The Third Volume’ even though it is not found in the surviving work. Perhaps for his edition Moseley had an appropriate title page printed making use of it.
One feature of F3 requires further comment here. It is quite often possible to tell from the press variants which state of the F2(3) text was used by the compositors of F3. However, it appears that considerable improvements were made to the text of the Grammar. These include the correction of some of the errors in Latin, and the restoration of omissions. It is not clear, however, that these changes came from different copy from that used for F2(3). In all likelihood the corrections were made by someone using judgement and learning to put right what the compositors of F2(3) had not been able to manage for themselves.
Appendix 1
Books Printed by John Dawson Jr., 1637-48
| STC | Abbrev.Title | Bookseller / Publisher | Size | Pages | Sheets |
| 1637 | |||||
| 548 | Christian Offices | C.Greene | 4 | 399 | 50 |
| 548.3 | do. | C.Greene | 4 | 350 | 44 |
| [2672.3] | Psalms | Stat.Co. | 16 | ||
| 4231 | Wholesome Words | P.Stephens C.Meredith |
12 | ||
| [4293.2] | U.Germany | N.Butter, N.Bourne | 4 | 108 | 13.5 |
| 7357 | Sally Fleet | T.Nicholes | 4 | 48 | 6 |
| 22120 | Daily Walk | H.Overton | 12 | 838 | 35 |
| 25436 | Recreatione | C.Greene, H.Moseley | 12 | 194 | 8 |
| 25725.6 | Holy Table | Linc.Dioc. | 4 | 238 | 30 |
| 1637/8 | |||||
| 435.27 | Date, Almnk | Stat.Co | 8 | 40 | 2.5 |
| 522.18 | Dade, Almnk | Stat.Co. | 8 | 40 | 2.5 |
| 531.29 | Woodhouse, Almnk | Stat.Co. | 8 | 40 | 2.5 |
| 1638 | |||||
| 5904 | Love’s Riddle | H.Seile | 8o | 96 | 6 |
| 6913.5 | Drousie Disease | M.Sparke | 12 | 168 | 7 |
| 11201 | Dialling | F.Eglesfield | 4 | 39 | 5 |
| 11550 | Rogue | B. Langford | 12o | 254 | 10.6 |
| 12454 | Balzac, Epistles | F.Eglesfield, J.Cooke, R.Serger | 8 | 270 | 16.9 |
| 13048 | Aethiopian | F.Eglesfield | 4 | 183 | 23 |
| 13544 | Hocus-pocus | R.Mabbe | 4 | 64 | 8 |
| 18343 | Springs Glorie | C.Greene | 4 | 50 | 6.25 |
| 20266 | Saints Submssn | P.Cole | 12 | 324 | 13.5 |
| 20281a.7 | Three Sermns | M.Sparke | 12 | 224 | 9.4 |
| 20335 | Janitor | J.Cowper | 12 | 276 | 11.5 |
| 21114 | Essayes | J.Bellamie | 12 | 566 | 23.6 |
| 21190 | Doctr. Faith | J.Newbery | 12 | 522 | 21.75 |
| 22501 | Mercie | F.Eglesfield | 12 | 148 | 6.2 |
| 22934.9 | Suppl.Saints | H.Overton | 12 | 356 | 14.9 |
| 23936 | Godly Prayers | R.Thrale (end only) | 12 | 296 | 12.3 |
| 24518 | America | P.Cole | 4 | 44 | 5.5 |
| [24715] | Siren Coelestis | 4 | 10 | 1.25 | |
| 25356 | Humane Life | H.Overton | 8 | 78 | 4.9 |
| 25436a | Recreatione | C.Greene | 12 | 186 | 7.75 |
| 1638/9 | |||||
| 490.15 | Neve, Almnk | Stat.Co. | 8 | 40 | 2.5 |
| 495.14 | Perkins, Almnk | Stat.Co. | 8 | 39 | 2.5 |
| 496.6 | Pierce, Almnk | Stat.Co. | 8 | 40 | 2.5 |
| 531.30 | Woodhouse Almnk | Stat.Co | 8 | 40 | 2.5 |
| 1639 | |||||
| 3 | Pallas Armata | J.Williams | 8 | 96 | 6 |
| [552] | Conscience | 4 | 62(Pt3) | 7.8 | |
| 1227 | SevenPsalms | F.Eglesfield | 4 | 306 | 38.25 |
| 17341 | Complete Farrier | R.Young | 8 | 170 | 10.63 |
| 17922 | Mill, Poems | L.Blaikelocke | 8 | 244 | 15.25 |
| 18337 | Nabbes, Plays | N.Fussell | 4 | 480 | 60 |
| 18384 | Quaternio | T.Slater | 4 | 280 | 35 |
| 18830.2 | Sum Religion | R.Openshaw | 8 | ||
| 18946 | Ov. Heroical Ep. | M.Sparke | 8 | 190 | 11.9 |
| 19878.5 | Lamentations | P.Cole | 2 | 94 | 4 |
| 20247 | New Covenant | N.Bourne | 4 | 590 | 73.75 |
| 20542 | Emblems | F.Eglesfield | 8 | 384 | 24 |
| 20660 | Gods Harvest | JD, R.Mabbe | 4 | 231 | 29 |
| 21056 | Civ.Eccl.Law | 4 | 8 (1st qre) | 1 | |
| 22477 | Breathing after God | R.Mabbe T.Slater | 12 | 240 | 10 |
| 22493 | Philippians | P.Cole | 4 | 256 | 32 |
| 22935 | Suppl.Saints | H.Overton | 12 | 356 | 14.9 |
| 23513 | Profanomastix | D.Pakeman | 4 | 84 | 10.4 |
| 23515 | Swan Sermon | 4 | 32 | 4 | |
| 24048 | Threnikos | R.Mabbe P.Nevill | 2 | 916 | 229 |
| 24969 | Optic Glass | L. Blaikelocke | 8 | 178 | 11.2 |
| 25025a | Warre | F.Eglesfield | 2 | 495 | 123.75 |
| 25959 | New Eng. | J.Bellamy | 4 | 88 | 10.5 |
| 1639/40 | |||||
| 496.7 | Pierce, Almnk | Stat.Co. | 8 | 16 | 1 |
| 531.31 | Woodhouse, Almnk | Stat.Co. | 8 | 16 | 1 |
| 1640 | |||||
| 1226.3 | Baker, Psalms | F.Eglesfield | 4 | 206 | 25.75 |
| 1228 | do. | F.Eglesfield | 4 | 289 | 36.13 |
| 4620 | Carew, Poems | T.Walkley | 8 | 267 | 17 |
| 4914 | Cervant., Novells | R.Mabbe | 2 | 324 | 82.5 |
| 7545 | Heavenly Hymn | F.Eglesfield | 8 | 38 | 2.4 |
| 7746.6 | Cat. of Lords | T.Walkley | 8 | 14 | 1 |
| [7746.7] | of Knights | T.Walkley | 8 | 14 | 1 |
| [7746.9] | of Dukes | T.Walkley | 8 | 14 | 1 |
| [7746.13] | of Dukes | T.Walkley | 8 | 14 | 1 |
| 7747 | Select Committee | H.Overton | 4 | 8 | 1 |
| 7747.3 | do. | H.Overton | 4 | 8 | 1 |
| 11466 | Joseph’s Coat | J.Williams | 4 | 194 | 24.25 |
| 12875 | God’s Summons | 12 | 645 | 27 | |
| [13732] | Soul’s Implanation | F.Clifton | 4 | 320 | 40 |
| [14754] | Jonson | T.Walkley | 2 | 599 | 150 |
| 21173 | Pract. Catechm | J.Bellamie, R.Smith |
4 | 360 | 45 |
| 21775 | Greek Princes | T.Walkley | 2 | 225 | 56.5 |
| 22403 | Similies | 8 | 72 | 4.5 | |
| 22453 | Shirley, Arcadia | F.Eglesfield | 4 | 66 | 8.25 |
| 23303 | Stoughton Ch’s Peace | J.Bellamie, R.Smith |
4 | 76 | 9.5 |
| 23514 | Redde Debitum | J.Williams | 4 | 240 | 30 |
| [23551] | Testaments Wills | Stat.Co. | 4 | 616 | 77 |
| 23777 | Needle’s Excellency | J.Boler | 4 | 8print; [31 patterns] |
1 |
| 23815.3 | Wit and Mirth | 8 | 40 | 2.5 | |
| 24979 | Cat. Nobility | T.Walkley | 8 | 118 | 74 |
| 1640/1 | |||||
| 6844 | Digby, Speech | T.Walkley | 4 | ||
| 7746.11 | Cat. Marqs. | T.Walkley | 8 | 8 | 0.5 |
| 1641 | |||||
| [14754] | |||||
| WING | |||||
| A66 | Abbot Vind.Sabbathi | H.Overton | 8 | 251 | 15.7 |
| A2112 | Piers Almnk | Stat. Co. | 8 | 16 | 1 |
| A2828 | Woodhouse Almn | Stats | 8 | 16 | 1 |
| B570a | A Ball Chr Relig. | 8 | 50 | 3.2 | |
| B2936 | Biondi civ.warres | J.Benson | 2 | 337 | 84.25 |
| B4262 | Brathwaite Gentlmn | 2 | 506 | 126.5 | |
| B4275 | Penitent Pilg. | T.Williams | 12 | 445 | 18.6 |
| C1384 | Cat Sp Temp | T.Walkley | 8 | 14 | 1 |
| C6176A | Let Lwr House | T.Walkley | 4 | 26 | 3.25 |
| C6329 | Cornwallis, Discourse | .J.Benson | 4 | 29 | 3.625 |
| C6330 | Cornwallis, Prince | N.Butter | 8 | 107 | 6.7 |
| D1194 | Sorlin, Ariana | T.Walkley | 2 | 331 | 82.75 |
| F718 | Fenton, Catechm | 8 | 8 | 0.5 | |
| F1515 | Ford, Reformation | H.Overton | 4 | 23 | 3 |
| H2626 | Ford, Reformation | John Rothwell H.Overton |
4 | 23 | 3 |
| W3338 | Womock, Beaten Oyle | I.W. | 4 | 62 | 7.75 |
| 1642 | |||||
| A2100 | Perkins, Almn | Stats | 8 | 40 | 2.5 |
| A2608 | Vaux, Almn | Stats | 8 | 39 | 2.5 |
| A2671 | Wharton, Almn | Stats | 8 | 40 | 2.5 |
| A2829 | Woodhouse, Almn | Stats | 8 | 39 | 2.5 |
| A3956 | Ashe, Gd.Courage | John Burroughs | 4 | 36 | 4.5 |
| A3956A | do. do. | Laurence Chapman | 4 | 39 | 5 |
| C564 | T.Carew Poems | T.Walkley | 8 | 290 | 18.125 |
| C4555 | Clarke Nose-gay | H.Overton | 12 | 268 | 11.2 |
| R2080A | Rowlands MerrieM | Samuel Rand | 4 | 20 | 2.5 |
| W460 | Cat Dukes, Marqs | T.Walkley | 8 | 164 | 10.25 |
1643 11 1644 7 1645 8 1646 14 1647 12 1648 9 1649 2
Appendix 2
Watermarks in F2(3)
Symmetrical grapes (Briquet type 4, (4.464 cent./southern France), 13003-112; 1610 Gaudriault 957) 1*
Tub, Horace 1, Grammar
Crown with 9 pearls arched over and dolphin (Briquet 5807-90 Dauphiné) 2
Tub, Disc.
Letter K on shield with fleur-de-lis above(Briquet 8255-6 Kempten; Augsburg) 3
Tub, Grammar
Shield with fleur-de-lis, and crown above (Briquet 7167 Poitiers,
7210, 7254 Chateaudun; Heawood (1930) 31-40) 4
Und.
Two-handle pot with fleur-de-lis above (Briquet 12857-8 Nantes;
Churchill 467, 470, 42) 5
Masques
One-handle pot with crescent at top, letters AD (Briquet 1270
Lisieux, 12788 Bayonne; Churchill 466-9, 471;
Heawood (1986) 3686-94) 6
Masques
Two Columns with fleur-de-lis above 7
Tub, Mag. Lady
Shield with fleur-de-lis 8
Tub, Mag. Lady
One-handle pot with fleur-de-lis at top, letters AM (Briquet 9247-8 Bayonne) 9 Masques
High-shouldered pot with fleur-de-lis at top, small handles 10
Masques
Two-handle pot with crescent above, letters IP 11
Und.
Two Columns with grapes above (Heawood (1986) 3485-3511);
found in England 1615 onwards, Gaudriault 861-5) 12
Und., Mortimer, Horace
Crown, with three spikes, or three Columns(Briquet 4779-82,
Piedmont, Switzerland, Germany) 13
Und.
Heart with Letters IB (Briquet 2.259 French) 14
Tub, Disc.
One-handle pot with crescent at top, larger handle (1644, 1646 Gaudriault 887) 15
Disc. Sad Shep.
[*The numbers given to the WMs are merely labels having no special significance.]
222
Type
The incidence of the damaged or anomalous type is shown by the following table. Column 2 shows the number of quires in which the type has been found in each of four sections of F2(3); column 3 gives the year of the Dawson books in which the same type has been found and the number of books in which it occurs.
| No. of quires | Dates for Dawson books | |
| b | Masques 3 | 1638 3 1640 1 |
| d1 | Masques 13 | 1638 11 |
| Und. 11 | 1640 13 | |
| Horace 8 | ||
| Plays 4 | ||
| d2 | Masques 19 | 1637 5 |
| Und. 9 | 1639 10 | |
| Horace 25 | 1641 8 | |
| Plays 15 | ||
| d3 | Masques 14 | 1639 8 |
| Und. 3 | 1641 7 | |
| Horace 12 | ||
| Plays 5 | ||
| f | Masques 7 | 1637 2 |
| Und. | 1639 4 | |
| Horace 12 | 1641 | |
| Plays 3 | ||
| h1 | Masques 1 | |
| Und. 3 | ||
| Horace 1 | ||
| Plays 1 | ||
| h2 | Masques 22 | 1639 1 |
| Horace 7 | 1640 3 | |
| l | Masques 2 | 1639 2 |
| Und. 1 | 1640 6 | |
| Horace 12 | ||
| Plays 2 | ||
| ll | Masques 1 | 1639 1 |
| Und. 3 | 1640 4 | |
| Horace 12 | ||
| Plays 5 | ||
| s | Horace 2 | 1639 6 |
| ) ( | Masques 3 | |
| Und. 8 |