This article assesses the scope of Shakespeare's bibliographic presence in the early modern period. We have long known that approximately half of Shakespeare's plays were published during his lifetime, that some were reprinted early on, and that thirty-six of them were gathered in the First Folio in 1623. Many companions to Shakespeare contain a chapter on the early editions: 'Shakespeare Published', 'Shakespeare's Plays in Print', 'Shakespeare Writ Small: Early Single Editions of Shakespeare's Plays', 'Shakespeare in Print, 1593-1640', and so on. The early chapters of David Scott Kastan's Shakespeare and the Book cover similar ground, and Andrew Murphy's Shakespeare in Print also devotes a chapter to 'The early quartos'. What these chapters, useful though they are, do not examine in any detail is the comparative popularity of Shakespeare in print: how present was Shakespeare as 'a man in print' compared to contemporary writers, in particular contemporary playwrights? Did Shakespeare sell well? Were his playbooks more or less popular than, say, Jonson's or Fletcher's? By how much? Judging by his presence as a man in print, what kind of authorial status did Shakespeare have in early modern England? These are some of the questions this article proposes to investigate.

It may be useful to start by taking a snapshot of the presence of Shakespeare's writings in the London book trade. Let us briefly look at a single year: 1600. It is true that this is an extraordinary year for Shakespeare, with more publications than in any other year during his life, yet the year's total book production, with approximately 300 titles produced and published in London, is also of unprecedented scope. The subject matter to which the greatest part of these titles was devoted is religion, which accounted for over a third of the total output.