Notes Introduction 1. Thomas Bodley, Letters of Sir Thomas Bodley to Thomas James, ed. G. W. Wheeler (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1926), 35. In 1607, Bodley expresses skepticism about taking more of “those pamphlets left of D. Reinoldes bookes” because the library cannot take “euery riffe raffe” (171). 2. Bodley, 219. 3. Bodley, 222. 4. Heidi Brayman Hackel, “‘Rowme’ of its Own: Printed Drama in Early Libraries,” A New History of Early English Drama, eds. John D. Cox and David Scott Kastan (New York: Columbia, 1997), 113–30. 5. Peter W. M. Blayney, The First Folio of Shakespeare (Washington, DC: Folger Library Publications, 1991), 1. 6. Early in the sixteenth century, William and John Rastell published some individual plays in folio, apparently attempting to establish drama in the 1530 as an early print genre. Their folio plays included Henry Medwall’s Nature (c. 1525), John Heywood’s Johan Johan (1533), and John Skelton’s Magnyfycence (1533). According to Julie Stone Peters, these plays may have been designed for “ease of production” (The Theatre of the Book [Oxford, 2000], 26–7), and the folio format, allowing more space for illustration and larger margins for annotation, may have contributed to his goal. 7. Jeffery Todd Knight, Bound to Read (Philadelphia: U of Pennsylvania P, 2013), 27. 8. Notably, Bodley is worried here about what new books to acquire, because “Of Protestant writers in f˚. [folio] I doe not thinke but in a maner, we haue all that can be gotten,” which also indicates a privileging of the folio format, at least in acquisitions (62–3). 9. For example, in one of his letters to Thomas James, written while he was acquiring and arranging books for the library, he gives the following instruction: “Offucius de Astrorum facult. is put among bookes in 4to. it being in f˚” (26). 10. Richard Helgerson, Forms of Nationhood: The Elizabethan Writing of England (Chicago: U of Chicago P, 1994), 175, 171. 180 M Notes 11. Kevin J. Donovan, “Jonson’s Texts in the First Folio,” Ben Jonson’s 1616 Folio, eds. Jennifer Brady and W. H. Herendeen (Newark, DE: U of Delaware P, 1991), 23–4. 12. Paul Collins, The Book of William (New York: Bloomsbury, 2009), 25–6. 13. See Allardyce Nicoll, Chapman’s Homer (Princeton: Princeton UP), 1956, 2/e 1967, xiv–xix. Publication dates for editions of Chapman’s Homer remain conjectural. Richard Field printed the folio Illiad around 1611; Nathaniel Butter published Odyssey around 1614, both collections appear- ing under the title page The Whole Works of Homer sometime after that, with the ESTC estimating 1616. Conceivably the Illiad and Odyssey, despite about three years separating their publications, were designed to be bound toghether, so the usual characterization that Whole Works was created from unsold sheets of the 1611 Iliad may be misleading. Some new prefatory matter to Iliad needed to be created for Whole Works because of the death of Prince Henry, to whom Chapman had dedicated the Iliad. For this see John Buchtel, “Book Dedications and the Death of a Patron: The Memorial Engraving in Chapman’s Homer,” Book History 7 (2004), 1–29. 14. For the romance audience as a “middlebrow” readership, see Steve Mentz, Romance For Sale, esp. pp. 17–45. 15. Publisher Simon Miller appears to be the first to distinguish between “large folio” and “small folio” in catalogues appended to Thomas Tonkis’s play Lingua, John Gumbleden’s Christ Tempted, and Edmund Calamy’s Evidence For Heaven (1657). 16. G. Thomas Tanselle, “The Concept of Format,” Studies in Bibliography 53 (2000), 113. 17. Ibid., 108. 18. For Moxon’s folio illustration, see Mechanick Exercises on the Whole Art of Printing, eds. Herbert Davis and Harry Carter (Mineola: Dover, 1978), 224. 19. Joshua Sylvester, Du Bartas His Deuine Weeles and Workes. London: Humfrey Lounes, 1611, C3r. Unless otherwise indicated, books printed before 1700 will be cited by signature, books after 1700 by page number. Poems quoted from a modern edition will be cited by line; plays quoted from modern editions will cite act, scene, and line number. 20. Microphilus (Thomas Heywood?), The new-yeeres gift (London: Nichlas and Issac Okes, 1636), B3r–B3v. 21. Measurements are of the size of the text block, which refers to the size of the type page and the total type page. The type page is the measurement of the space available for text on a typical full page, measured from the ascender on the first line of text to the descender of the final line of text; the total type page includes headlines, footnotes, marginal notes, and other presswork to illustrate the maximum space available on the forme. All mea- surements will be in millimeters, and will accord to the following formula: Text block = Type page height × type page width (Total type page height × total type page width) Notes M 181 The size of the text block gives a better sense of the size of a book. Paper can be trimmed, so the size of the individual leaf cannot reliably tell us how large or small a book was intended to be. The text block, for obvious reasons, will rarely be cut, and its measurement gives us, at the very least, a sense of the absolute smallest size a folio can be. See Fredson Bowers, Principles of Bibliographic Description (Princeton, 1949; rpt. New Castle, DE: Oak Knoll, 1994), 300–6. 22. Bodley, Letters, 26, 46. 23. “I doe determine the next weeke, to send yow a proofe of the order that I take, in the coupling of bookes in one volume” (120). In this instance, Bodley is figuring out how to list coupled books in his library’s catalogue. 24. “I am glad of your good happe, in the booke that we lost, I meane Onus Ecclesiae, which assure your self, was once in the Libr. I pray yow cause it to be bound, if yow please with that other, if yow had it not before, which was ioined with it, or some other, for that I doubt it self it is to thinne to be bound alone.” (65–6). 25. On purchasing books as sheets in early modern England, see Knight, Bound, 4–5; McKerrow Introduction, 123–4; Raven 138–9; Margaret Benton, “The Book as Art,” A Companion to the History of the Book, eds. Simon Eliot and Jonathan Rose (West Sussex, UK: Blackwell, 2007), 500–1; Henry Petroski, The Book on the Bookshelf (New Your: Knopf, 1999), 152–3. Raven notes that trade bindings were more common in the late seventeenth century than bibliographers previously thought, but they were generally rare in the period covered here. 26. See Alexandra Gillespie, Print Culture and the Medieval Author (Oxford: Clarendon), 45–54. 27. David McKitterick, Print, Manuscript, and the Search for Order (Cambridge, 2003), 165. 28. ‘Spenser’s First Folio: The Build-It-Yourself Edition’ (Spenser Studes 21[2006] 21–49); see also his “Folios,” 56–61. 29. In his 1612 folio Poly-Olbion, Drayton apologizes for “hauing promised this Poeme of the generall Iland so many yeeres, I now publish only part of it” (A1r); the second part appeared in 1622. William Browne published Britannia’s Pastorals in two folios volumes c.1613 and 1616. The first vol- ume ends “Finis Libri primi” (P2v) (“The End of the First Book”), thus anticipating the second volume. That volume ends, “The end of the second Booke” (S4r) although no further volumes appeared. 30. Knight, Bound, 56–7. 31. D. F. McKenzie, “Typography and Meaning: The Case of William Congreve.” Making Meaning: ‘Printers of the Mind’ and Other Essays, eds. Peter D. McDonald and Michael F. Suarez, S. J. (Amherst, MA: U of Massachusetts P, 2002), 200. 32. For McGann, see especially pp. 59–72 of The Textual Condition. Piper explains his methodology in Dreaming in Books, especially pp. 10–11. 182 M Notes 33. Martyn Lyons, A History of Reading and Writing in the Western World (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2009), 68–70. 34. Steven Galbraith, “English Literary Folios 1593–1623,” Tudor Books and Readers, ed. John N. King (Cambridge, 2010), 49–61. 35. Ibid., 66–7. 36. William Gamage, Linsi-woolsie Or Two Centuries of Epigrrames (Augustine Matthewes, 1621), (F6r-F6v). 37. Gamage’s publisher Augustine Matthewes published the book in octavo. 38. See John Pitcher on Samuel Daniel’s folio Works (cf. below, pp. 67–71), or Douglas Brooks on Jonson in From Playhouse To Printing House, 104–39. Again, I am not claiming that folios were never meant to appeal to a patron: some copies of Daniel’s folio are designed for patrons, and I think Jonson’s Workes was motivated in part by a desire for patronage. However, these books are also commercial artifacts designed to be sold in the marketplace, and, regardless of their success at obtaining patronage for authors, publish- ers and booksellers still needed them to be successful in the marketplace. 39. Charles Forker, “How Did Shakespeare Come by His Books?” Shakespeare Yearbook 14 (2004), 113. 40. Anthony James West, “Ownership of Shakespeare First Folios Over Four Centuries,” The Library, 7th Series 10 (2009): 405–8,” see esp. the chart on p. 406. In particular, it is worth exploring the availability and use of credit in the book trade; for starters see Blayney’s musings on “Borrowing on deposit” (First Folio 29); his suggestion that booksellers may have “[lent] books for a fee” intriguingly introduces the possibility that bookseller/ bookbuyer transactions could involve more than simple POS transactions. 41. John Milton, Areopagitica, John Milton: Prose, ed. David Loewenstein (Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2013), 185. 42. The best outline of the publishing practices of Caxton and de Worde, and their uses of Chaucer as an early model for the commercial book trade, is Alexandra Gillespie, Print Culture and the Medieval Author, esp.