Compositor Determination in the First Folio
King
Lear
by
I. B. Cauthen, Jr.
The methods of determining the compositors of the Shakespeare
First Folio (1623) by spelling tests have become well-known to
bibliographers. The first suggestion for such a determination was
advanced in 1920 by Thomas Satchell, who noted that
orthographically the Folio Macbeth fell in two distinct
divisions, (1) from the beginning of the play to III.iii (216-col.
a, 2m5), and (2) from III.iv to the end of the play (col. b,
2m5-2n4).[1] With the exception of
one page (2m2), the first portion of the play contains the forms
doe and goe, whereas the latter portion uses the
forms do (or doo) and go. Mr.
Satchell
supports this division of the play by a list of thirty-three other
words which are consistent in each half of the play, but differ in
the two halves.[2] He was unable to
determine whether these findings were best explained by supposing
that two compositors worked on the play or
that two copyists worked on the manuscript from which the play was
printed.
It remained for E. E. Willoughby in The Printing of the First
Folio (1932) p. 56ff. to demonstrate from the printing of other
plays in the Folio that Mr. Satchell's conjecture that two
compositors were used was correct. Using the doe/do and
goe/go forms as a basis, he selected three other "especially
significant words not peculiar to Macbeth":
cousin/cosin (or cosine, cozen),
here/heere,
and traytor/traitor. Using these five words, Mr. Willoughby
confirmed Mr. Satchell's division of the play: one compositor, whom
he labelled "A," set from the beginning of the play through
2m1
v; the second compositor, "B," set one page (2m2),
but
immediately following this page the typesetting was resumed by A,
who set from 2m2
v through column a, 2m5; compositor
B returned
to the setting and continued from column b, 2m5, through the end of
the play. With the same test, Mr. Willoughby identified two
compositors at work in
Richard II, Julius Caesar, and
Hamlet. He further showed that the two compositors were at
work in
The Tempest, the first play to be printed, and that
compositor A set up the present first page of
Troilus and
Cressida, the last play to be printed. But he introduced the
possibility that another compositor or another pair of compositors
participated in setting type within the Folio, particularly in
A
Midsummer Night's Dream, The Merchant of Venice, and
Romeo
and Juliet which "show no evidence . . . of having been
composed by either
A or
B" (p. 58).
When we apply Mr. Willoughby's test to King Lear in
the
Folio, it could appear at first sight that the unknown compositors
were at work, as the following distribution of variants shows:
|
2q2 |
2q2v
|
2q3 |
2q3v
|
2q4 |
2q4v
|
2q5 |
2q5v
|
2q6 |
2q6v
|
2r1 |
2r1v
|
2r2 |
| doe |
1 |
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 |
1 |
| goe |
|
|
1 |
|
2 |
4 |
|
|
|
|
|
1 |
| here |
|
2 |
3 |
|
|
1 |
|
4 |
|
2 |
2 |
2 |
| traytor |
| do |
1 |
3 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
4 |
3 |
2 |
|
3 |
4 |
4 |
6 |
| go |
|
|
|
1 |
2 |
|
2 |
3 |
|
1 |
1 |
|
3 |
| heere |
2 |
2 |
|
|
|
1 |
2 |
|
|
|
3 |
3 |
1 |
| traitor |
|
2r2v
|
2r3 |
2r3v
|
2r4 |
2r4v
|
2r5 |
2r5v
|
2r6 |
2r6v
|
2s1 |
2s1v
|
2s2 |
2s2v
|
2s3 |
| doe |
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
|
1 |
| goe |
|
3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 |
|
1 |
| here |
2 |
3 |
1 |
1 |
|
2 |
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
2 |
| traytor |
| do |
4 |
2 |
1 |
3 |
4 |
3 |
9 |
6 |
2 |
10 |
1 |
6 |
5 |
2 |
| go |
2 |
3 |
5 |
3 |
1 |
1 |
3 |
1 |
3 |
2 |
3 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
| heere |
3 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
1 |
1 |
3 |
2 |
2 |
|
5 |
3 |
1 |
1 |
| traitor |
|
2 |
|
5 |
1 |
|
1 |
|
2 |
|
|
3 |
1 |
1 |
Here it appears that compositor B was responsible for pages 2q2,
2q3v, 2q4, 2q5, 2r1, 2r2, 2r2v,
2r3v, 2r4, 2r4v,
2r5v, 2r6, 2r6v, 2s1,
2s1v, 2s2, 2s2v, and 2s3, where
the proportion is four or more characteristic B-forms to one
characteristic A-form. But in the remaining nine pages
(2q2v,
2q3, 2q4v, 2q5v, 2q6,
2q6v, 2r1v, 2r3, and 2r5) we have
a higher proportion of A-forms,
and in two instances (2q3 and 2q6) they outnumber the B-forms. Thus
we should assign these pages either to the unknown compositor(s) or
to compositor A. Yet in these pages appear words other than
do,
go and
here which are spelled in compositor B's
characteristic way; for example, on 2q2
v, a doubtful page,
we
have
maiesty, B's characteristic spelling, three times. And
on 2q3, where the A-forms outnumber the B-forms, we have the
characteristic B spelling
deerest. In the light of this, Mr.
Willoughby's admittedly "simple" test can be trusted only where
preponderant evidence reveals the compositor. In instances where
the evidence is doubtful, other tests must be used to determine the
responsible compositor.
Another test for the determination of compositors is that
evolved by Charlton Hinman, who published an account of his
technique in 1940.[3] Briefly, the
test gathers evidence from significant variant spellings and, by an
appeal to "coincidence of position," determines the compositor who
is at work. But an examination of 600 variant spellings of 142
words in the Folio text of Lear failed to bring to light any
demonstrable two-compositor pattern. Indeed, from all the evidence
derived from this test it appeared most likely that only one
compositor was at work during the setting of the play.[4] Because characteristic forms do
not
appear "on distinct groups of pages" we are justified in evaluating
this evidence as indicating only one compositor.
If only one compositor is responsible for Lear, the next
question concerns his identity. Since the last part of the play can
be shown by Mr. Willoughby's test most probably to have been set by
compositor B, it follows that the whole play was set by him.
However, this simple test needs confirmation. Fortunately, several
additional pieces of evidence can be advanced to identify the
compositor of Lear with the compositor B of the rest of the
Folio. Although individually these details are not irrefutable in
themselves, the cumulative weight of them all shows conclusively
that this compositor is B. This evidence can be drawn from two
sources, the plays surrounding Lear and from
Lear
itself.
First, evidence from the simple compositor-determination test
shows clearly that the plays surrounding Lear were set by
identifiable compositors. The following table shows the
compositorial assignments in these neighboring plays:
|
Timon
(2g3v-2h5v) |
Compositor B:
2g3v-2h5v
|
21 pages |
|
Julius Caesar (2k1-2l5v) |
B: 2k1-2k2 |
3 |
|
A: 2k2v-2k3v
|
3 |
|
B: 2k4-2l5v
|
16 |
|
Macbeth (2l6-2n4) |
A: 2l6-2m1v
|
4 |
|
B: 2m2 |
1 |
|
A: 2m2v-col. a, 2m5 |
5½ |
|
B: col. b, 2m5-2n4 |
10½ |
|
Hamlet (2n4-2q1v) |
B: 2n4v-2n5v
|
3 |
|
A: 2n6-202 |
5 |
|
B: 202v-203 |
2 |
|
A: 203v
|
1 |
|
B: 204-2p4 |
13 |
|
A: 2p4v-col. a, 2p6v
|
4½ |
|
B: col. b, 2p6v-2q1v
|
2½ |
|
Lear (2q2-2s3) |
-- |
|
Othello (2s3v-2v6) |
B: 2s3v-2v6 |
30 |
|
Antony and Cleopatra
(2v6v-2z2v
|
B: 2v6v-272v
|
29 |
|
Cymbeline (2z3-3b6) |
B: 2z3-3b6 |
31 |
Hamlet, then, ends with compositor B setting type;
Othello opens with the same compositor at work;
Lear
intervenes. It was not a practice of the Folio compositors to
change at the beginning of a play; they set by pages rather than by
act, scene, or play. Their usual habit was to continue from one
play to another unless they were at the end of a gathering or a
section. There are only two demonstrable changes of compositors at
the beginning of a play that is not also the beginning of a new
gathering or section: at the beginning of 1 Henry IV,
compositor A takes over from B (04), and at the beginning of
Macbeth, compositor A again takes over from B (2l6);
against
these two instances we have at least fifteen occasions when the
compositor who set the latter part of a play continued to set the
beginning of the following play.[5]
It is not impossible but indeed more likely that compositor B,
who set the last pages of Hamlet, should continue to set the
beginning pages of Lear.
Nor must one believe it would be impossible for one compositor
to set a whole play. Compositor A, early in the setting of the
Folio, had set Two Gentlemen of Verona in its entirety, and
compositor B had set all of Twelfth Night and
Timon.
The situation of a compositor setting four plays consecutively is
unique in the Folio but not unlikely.
From this evidence, found in plays surrounding Lear,
one
notes that in the four plays preceding Lear compositor B set
72 pages to A's 23 pages. Since B set more and more pages until
finally he was setting three plays alone, it seems not unlikely
that the pattern which is clearly established in the plays of
Othello, Antony, and Cymbeline had its
beginning in
Lear. All of the large groups of pages from
Timon
through Hamlet are by compositor B: he set 24 pages
(2g3v-2h5v) in his largest group.
Compositor A, on the other
hand, set only 5½ pages in his largest group
(2m2v-col. a,
2m5). Certainly the preponderantly large groups set by any one
compositor in this section are those by compositor B.
Moreover, in Lear we find only one skeleton-forme
present: if we had found two skeletons in use here our conclusion
that only one compositor was setting type might well be suspect.
Generally speaking, if we find two skeletons in use, we may find
two compositors at work.[6] If we
find only one skeleton in use, we may have either one or two
compositors at work, but certainly, except in very special
circumstances, two skeletons more likely may be equated with the
work of two compositors than with one, especially in folio
printing. It would be impossible for one compositor to maintain a
speed in composing, rinsing, distributing, and attending to his
other duties that would allow him to keep abreast of the press in
a manner necessitating the use of two skeletons; and where we find
one skeleton in use we are not forced to believe that two
compositors were at work. Thus if we find evidence elsewhere of
only one compositor at work,
we need not consider that it would be impossible for one compositor
to set the whole play.
More important, however, than these technical points is the
evidence that can be drawn from within the play itself. The
detailed examination of the variant spellings within the play,
following the method evolved by Mr. Hinman, revealed certain words
where the compositor who set Lear had a very marked
preference for certain spellings. To confirm these preferences, a
similar spelling test was undertaken for Antony and
Cleopatra, and Othello, plays definitely set by
compositor B. For comparison with these spellings, an examination
of compositor A's portions of Macbeth and
Hamlet
disclosed truly preferential spellings of both compositors. This
comparison not only revealed that Lear was set by one
compositor but furnished
other test words to add to Mr. Willoughby's test.
[7] A summary of this examination is
as
follows:
|
A Spelling
|
B Spelling
|
Lear Spelling
|
| deare (17) |
deare (0) |
deare (2) |
| deere (0) |
deere (59) |
deere (26) |
| does (17) |
does (31) |
does (1) |
| doe's (1) |
doe's (2) |
doe's (1) |
| do's (1) |
do's (25) |
do's (15) |
| beene (13) |
beene (4) |
beene (8) |
| bene (3) |
bene (6) |
bene (1) |
| bin (3) |
bin (24) |
bin (19) |
| deuil (5) |
deuil (2) |
deuil (0) |
| diuel (0) |
diuel (34) |
diuel (2) |
| sirra(h) (0) |
sirra(h) (5) |
sirrah (8) |
| sirrha (1) |
sirrha (0) |
sirha (1) |
| sirra (0) |
sirra (0) |
sirra (1) |
| houre (9) |
houre (28) |
houre (9) |
| hower (3) |
hower (0) |
hower (1) |
| howre (0) |
howre (1) |
howre (1) |
| vilde (0) |
vilde (9) |
vilde (4) |
| vile (2) |
vile (0) |
vile (0) |
|
vild or vil'd (2) |
| power (3) |
power (18) |
power (9) |
| powre (0) |
powre (7) |
powre (8) |
| breefe (0) |
breefe (4) |
breefe (2) |
| briefe (2) |
briefe (2) |
briefe (1) |
| yong (0) |
yong (15) |
yong (10) |
| young (2) |
young (6) |
young (5) |
| blood (16) |
blood (31) |
blood (12) |
| bloud (5) |
bloud (3) |
bloud (1) |
The very close correspondence between compositor B's
preferential spellings and those found in Lear indicate
clearly that the tentative assumption made at the first in the
investigation was correct: all of Lear was set by compositor
B. Where the simpler test of Mr. Willoughby failed to reveal the
compositor of a third of the play, the more detailed examination of
all the significant variants established the compositor of all the
play.
But there remains one further point that may be suggested as
accounting for certain minor divergences in compositor B's
preferential spellings in Lear. In the first place, we must
not expect a compositor to spell certain words in an invariable
way. Mr. Willoughby has already pointed out the possibility of a
compositor's varying the spelling of words, and Mr. Hinman has
enlarged upon that possibility: occasional copy-spellings will come
through; justifying of lines will affect preferential spellings;
the diminishing of a certain sort usually employed in preferential
spellings may lead him to varying his spellings; and insistence,
either by editor or author, upon copy-spellings for rhyme words, or
even a compositor's own idiosyncrasies, may cause variants.
Finally, Mr. Hinman concludes,
. . . there are doubtless hosts of little part-psychological,
part-muscular influences too subtle for analysis which may, on
occasion, cause variations: such, perhaps, as the atmosphere
created in the compositor's own mind by his text, so that he sets
bin in a low-comedy speech by a yokel, but
beene a
few pages later in a very pompous speech by the king—though the
copy has the modern been in both places (pp. 79-80, note
1).
Taking these "part-psychological, part-muscular influences" in
connection with Mr. Hinman's declaration that "a book is always
likely to contain an occasional copy-spelling," we may account for
the slight divergence from preferential spellings that we find in
Lear.
Perhaps one of the factors that cause variation from
preferential spellings should be emphasized here. In the plays
where Mr. Willoughby's test works best, the compositor is setting
from manuscript. Here in Lear, as in Midsummer
Night's
Dream, Merchant of Venice, and Romeo and Juliet
where
Mr. Willoughby conjectured unknown compositors, the play was being
set from printed copy. It is probable that the printed copy has
much more effect upon a compositor's spelling than has been
previously recognized. It may be that if a compositor meets a word
in manuscript he will set that word in his own spelling far more
often than if he meets that word in print. Although this is a
difficult point to prove,
we must remain aware that part-muscular influences, coupled with a
respect for the printed word, may be at work on the compositor when
he is setting type from a printed page which is acting as copy. We
may have, therefore, a situation where a compositor meeting "do" in
a manuscript will impose upon it his usual spelling; but if he
meets "do" in a printed text, he may accept readily the spelling
that is there, either do or doe or doo. This influence of
the printed word can be demonstrated in other ways, such as the use
of italics, the following of unusual spellings, the printing of
erroneously abbreviated speech-headings and the like, which have
long been noticed by bibliographers. Thus where we have a play
being reprinted from a previously
printed copy, we need to apply more comprehensive tests than the
five-word test of Mr. Willoughby and to examine the play using
another criterion for compositor-determination.
[8]
The principle that one must follow here in determining the
compositor of a play set from printed copy is this: he must examine
the spellings of the copy as well as those of the reprint, noting
what changes have been made in the spellings. If a
doe spelling is retained, it does nothing towards indicating
the compositor; if, however, it is changed to do without
some other factor such as line-justification intervening, we may
note that as a very definite indication of the compositor. This
principle proved successful in the compositor determination of
Lear.
[9]
But whatever the value of this principle, it is apparent, I
believe, that Lear was set by one compositor, B, of the
Folio. And this information is no academic exercise in a
theoretical desert. With the identification of the compositor
secure, we can undertake an examination of compositor B's work
elsewhere in the Folio where he was setting type from printed copy;
then, and only then, can we produce demonstrable evidence about his
characteristic handling of copy. And that, a longer story, must be
reserved for the present; but in spite of its length, it is an
important one for those who wish a text of Lear that is as
close as possible to Shakespeare's "fair copy." For the compositor
of the Folio text of Lear did make certain characteristic
changes in his text; and whatever the authority of the "Pied Bull"
Quarto, it has more authority than the changes made by a Jacobean
workman, compositor B of the Folio.
Notes
