That Shakespeare’s plays were published in his lifetime to a degree almost unparalleled in the works of other dramatists may or may not reflect their construction, at least in part, for reading rather than performance; doubtless this debate will long continue. But one implication of the publication statistics, as revealed and analysed by Lukas Erne, is irrefutable: there was a large and continuing market for these volumes, implying an eagerness to consume the plays through reading. The recent work of Andrew Murphy has made clear the continuing force and extent of this eagerness and its satisfaction through publication, doing much to adjust the focus of literary history to encompass popular as well as scholarly editions. By definition, the former have had wider circularity. In the 1770s, John Bell claimed sales of 3,000 copies simply for the first number of his serial Shakespeare, shortly after Samuel Johnson’s two editions of 1765 had sold about half that number. Nearly a century later, Charles Knight boasted sales of 700,000 for the various serial forms of his complete edition, extending the figure to one million when a later printing, selling for two shillings, was included. Both the Bell and the Knight are, of course, illustrated editions, forming part of the tradition beginning with Rowe – whose editions with pictorial frontispieces appeared when the Folios were the only other editions, and were neither easily nor cheaply available for most readers.