1 For extensive but incomplete bibliographic details see Masengill, Jeanne Addison, “Variant Forms of Fielding's Coffee-House Politician,” Studies in Bibliography, 5 (1952), 178–183Google Scholar. None of the standard biographies notes the textual problems or comments on their significance. See Cross, Wilbur L., The History of Henry Fielding, 3 vols. (1918; rpt. New York: Russell and Russell, 1963), III, 292Google Scholar; Dudden, F. Homes, Henry Fielding: His Life, Art, and Times, 2 vols. (Oxford: Clarendon, 1952), I, 69–74Google Scholar; and Rogers, Pat, Henry Fielding (London: Paul Elek, 1979), p. 49Google Scholar.

2 Masengill attempted to check as many copies as possible (more than fifteen), but her findings are proven inconclusive by the appearance of three new variants. The first, a unique copy in the Clark Library of Rape Upon Rape called to my attention by Robert D. Hume, has a differing printer's ornament on Blr, which, when considered in conjunction with a copy of The Coffee-House Politician noted by Masengill with a similar differing ornament, probably indicates that the original ornament broke and was replaced during the press run of gatherings B-F8. The second variant appears in the copy in the Yale library of The Coffee-House Politician reproduced in the “Three Centuries of English Drama” series on Readex microcards. It is similar to Masengill's (iiia) issue, but the Yale copy lists the Lincoln's Inn Fields cast of Ogden, Milward, etc., this copy has an added apostrophe in “Lincoln's” on the title page. I wish to thank Charles W. Mann, Director of the Rare Book Room at the been cropped). The third variant, similar to Masengill's (iiib) is located in the Rare Book Room of the Pennsylvania State University library. Containing the alternate Lincoln's Inn Fields cast of Ogden, Milward, etc., this copy has an added apostrophe in “Lincoln's” on the title page. I wish to thank Charles W. Mann, Director of the Rate Book Room at the Pennsylvania State University, for his assistance and advice in the examination of the copy housed in that collection.

3 Roberts. Watts, and their many contemporaries in the publishing and bookselling trade have suffered considerable neglect in standard literary discussions of the period. A recent issue of Eighteenth-century Studies, however, explores new ground, especially Hugh Amory, “‘De facto Copyright?’: Fielding's Works in Partnership, 1769–1821,” ECS, 17 (Summer, 1984), 449–476Google Scholar, with useful notes on p. 453. For other details consult Kenny, Shirley Strum, “The Publication of Plays,” in The London Theatre World 1660–1800, ed. Hume, Robert D. (Carbondale: Southern Illinois Univ. Press, 1980), pp. 309–336Google Scholar: Blagden, Cyprian, The Stationer's Company: A History, 1403–1959 (1960; rpt. Stanford: Stanford Univ. Press, 1977), chap. XIIGoogle Scholar; and Plomer, H.R. et al. , A Dictionary of the Printers and Booksellers who were at work in England, Scotland, and Ireland, 1668–1725 (Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press, 1922)Google Scholar.

4 The edition gives E. Rayner and H. Cook as the parties involved in printing the first of the three versions of this play. Facts are scarce, but Plomer notes that Rayner was the printer of an anonymous political poem addressed to William Pulteney in 1731. Further, he may have been related to one William Rayner, who was prosecuted for libeling Sir Robert Walpole in 1732 and who was possibly at one time the proprietor of The Craftsman, the anti-ministerial publication. No information is available concerning “H. Cook,” though a minor bookseller named “E. Cook” operated in London at the time and is perhaps the same E. Cook so named in the pirated version of Pasquin. See Plomer, H. R., Bushnell, G. H., and McDix, E. R.. A Dictionary of the Printers and Booksellers who were at work in England, Scotland, and Ireland, 1725–1775 (Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press, 1932)Google Scholar.

5 While no publisher is named, it is very possible that either Watts or Roberts did the actual printing. The play was sold for the benefit of the players, so perhaps Fielding and the publisher agreed on this arrangement for purely charitable reasons. For other details of the complicated publishing history of this play, see the excellent edition of The Grub Street Opera, ed. Morrissey, L. J. (Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd, 1973)Google Scholar.

6 Reprinted as a serial publication in Cote's Weekly Journal: Or, the English Stage-Player (beginning with no. 5), as listed in Wiles, R. M., Serial Publication in England Before 1750 (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1957), p. 294Google Scholar.

7 We should note, however, that Fielding's plays were far from the most successful of Roberts's publications that year. Stephen Duck's poems, for example, went through seven editions by autumn (see Daily Post, 9 October 1730). Roberts ran many ads for Duck's successive editions but did not do so for Fielding's.

8 Other examples from a slightly later period also suggest that Watts and Roberts worked together and that they were willing to issue Fielding's plays in several states. The Modern Husband and The Old Debauchees (February-June, 1732) both exist in variant impressions. See the BMC, 72, 937.

9 The run of the play was interrupted once in early July when one of the players became “indisposed,” and again in mid-July when the players decided their time was better spent “working up a New Pantomime Entertainment,” i.e., The Amorous Adventure (Daily Post, 15 July 1730). The final performance at the Little Hay took place 23 July, the play then being terminated without comment. All performance information is taken from The London Stage, 1729–1747 ed. Scouten, Arthur H., 2 vols. (Carbondale: Southern Illinois Univ. Press, 1961)Google Scholar. The London Stage (1, 99) refers to a “1731” edition of The Coffee-House Politician, but this is simply an error for “1730.”

10 A. H. Scouten remarks in the Introduction to The London Stage that “this time the individual players rather than the management were dealt with” (p. xlix). We must consider the likelihood, however, that perhaps no management (in the sense of that at Drury Lane, for instance) existed, creating the situation where the players themselves faced charges. A detailed analysis of the summer's theatrical events appears in Hume, Robert D.,Henry Fielding and the London Theatre 1728–1737 (forthcoming), chapter 2Google Scholar.

11 See Langhans, Edward A.. “The Theatres.” in London Theatre World, ed. Hume, Robert D. (Carbondale: Southern Illinois Univ. Press. 1981). pp. 63–65Google Scholar.

12 For some details of the Little Haymarket's operations during this period, see Hume, Robert D., “Henry Fielding and Politics at the Little Haymarket, 1728–1737,” in The Golden and the Brazen World: Papers in Literature and History, 1650–1800, ed. Wallace, John M. (Univ. of California Press, 1985), pp. 79–124Google Scholar. Professor Hume and I are presently preparing for publication a detailed analysis of the different groups who used the Little Hay from its opening in 1720 to 1737.

13 As noted by the London Stage, many newspaper ads are missing for September and October, 1730, so we have no way of knowing how often the troupe actually performed.

14 The advertisement for Love Makes A Man in the Daily Post for 9 November stresses the patent credentials of the players. Cross (I, 95–97), lacking information now available to scholars, did not realize that multiple companies used the Little Haymarket. Even today, the completeness of our performance records for the Little Haymarket remains uncertain. Some troupes may well have relied on handbills for their advertising.

15 The advertisement for 16 November 1730 announced their plan “To act Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays, with one revived play each week.” Plays included The False Count (Mrs. Behn, 1681); The Provok'd Husband (Cibber-Vanbrugh, 1728)Google Scholar; Othello; and Richard III.

16 The author of the Indian Empress received a benefit on the second night, a departure from usual practice, perhaps indicating that the playwright financed the cost of production in whole or part.

17 While Tom Thumb was presented ten times between 23 October 1730 and 14 January 1731, the fact remains that we have no information to suggest either that Fielding was affiliated with them during this period or that he received any financial remuneration from them. One piece of evidence, in fact, strongly implies that the Little Haymarket actors who originally performed Rape Upon Rape were unhappy about his taking himself and his play to Lincoln's Inn Fields. On 30 November 1730, four days before the Lincoln's Inn Fields production, the Little Hay mounted Fielding's play under its new title as part of a double bill with Tom Thumb. They introduced a new scene in the latter — an addition Fielding promptly denounced in an advertisement in the Daily Journal. See The London Stage, I. 97.

18 During January-December, 1730, Goodman's Fields put on six new productions, Lincoln's Inn Fields five, and Drury Lane twelve. Thomas Odell at Goodman's Fields chose Fielding's The Temple Beau for his very first new play at the theatre, but Fielding never again wrote for that house.

19 McCrea, Brian, Henry Fielding and the Politics of Mid-Eighteenth Century England (Athens, Georgia: Univ. of Georgia Press, 1981)Google Scholar. For the refutation of McCrea's position, see Robert D. Hume, “Henry Fielding and Politics at the Little Haymarket, 1728–1737.”

20 Fielding, Henry, Miscellanies, ed. Miller, Henry Knight (Middletown, Conn.: Wesleyan Univ. Press. 1972). p. 5Google Scholar.

21 Fielding apparently did not seriously consider Goodman's Fields at any time after the February, 1730 run there of The Temple Beau. Professor Hume has informed me that his calculations show that only about £30 profit was possible on a full benefit night. As Lincoln's Inn Fields could produce about £150, Fielding may well have chosen to negotiate with Rich for the profit reason alone.

22 I wish to thank Robert D. Hume for bringing various bibliographic details to my attention and for providing helpful suggestions during the preparation of this article.