For many years critics of Much Ado spoke highly of
Benedick and Beatrice, but found little else to praise. Particularly, many of
them complained of disunity in the play. In the nineteenth century, theories
of stratification began to be advanced in explanation of the supposed
defects.[1] In 1923 J. Dover Wilson
refined upon these theories and gave them apparent respectability by an
elaborate analysis which concluded that the "old play" which was
imperfectly blended into the new was "an early play by Shakespeare
himself." He concentrated on the bibliographical problems in the quarto,
finding in them evidence that the copy had been a theatre prompt copy in
which Shakespeare had marked revisions so unclearly that the compositor
had frequently become confused. For example, he pointed to sig. G1, which
has a narrower tail margin than other pages and contains thirty-nine lines
of text instead of the normal thirty-seven; in addition, a total of seven
verses are compressed into five lines of prose. Obviously, the compositor
was forced by some factor to make unexpected adjustments in the
page.[2]
Only very recently have critics found a unified theme in Much
Ado,[3] and as late as 1948 G.
B. Harrison spoke favorably of the stratification theory in an edition which
has been used by thousands of undergraduates.[4] Similarly, though Wilson's
position has
been convincingly
disputed by Sir Walter Greg, Sir Edmund Chambers, and others,
[5] they have not offered positive
refutation
of all his bibliographical arguments. Only limited scientific work has been
done on the quarto. Greg proved that the copy for the play had been
Shakespeare's foul papers, not a theatre prompt copy (
loc.
cit.).
And W. Craig Ferguson, arguing from the absence of stops after speech
prefixes and from other typographical practices, has disproved an old theory
of multiple compositors.
[6] I have
applied to this quarto the scientific bibliographical methods illustrated by
the work of Charlton Hinman on the Shakespeare First Folio and of George
W. Williams and Robert K. Turner, Jr., on other Renaissance
quartos.
[7] These scholars have
repeatedly disproved the old belief that Renaissance compositors invariably
set the pages of their copy seriatim. Using their methods I intend to prove
that
the
Much Ado quarto must be added to the growing list of
quartos known to have been cast off and composed by formes. This
knowledge will let us answer with relative certainty a number of the
bibliographical questions raised by Wilson and not specifically answered by
others. Thus may we finally lay to rest the theory of stratification.
[8]
The quarto of Much Ado was printed in 1600 by V. S.
(probably Valentine Sims) as part of the same job with 2 Henry
IV.[9] It collates
A-I
4 [A1] is the title-page, and [A1
v] is
blank. Through sheet G
two skeletons were used:
- Skeleton I imposed A(i), B(i), C(o), D(o), E(o), F(o),
G(i);
- Skeleton II imposed A(o), B(o), C(i), D(i), E(i), F(i),
G(o).
The precedence of A(i) is proved by three italic types
(
B
1,
B
2,
d
1) from that forme, which are
then
divided between the formes of B.
[10]
The running-titles would suggest that B (i) was also precedent; but two
italic types (
B
1,
B
2) from B (o) which
are
divided between the formes of C prove the precedence of B (o). Though
there is no indication of the cause for delay, or explanation of what the
press was doing during the delay, there seems to be no alternative but to
assume that the compositor stopped working after A long enough for both
skeletons to be available when B (o) was imposed. By chance the skeleton
which had imposed A (i) was used for B (o).
Such evidence as there is substantiates the running-title evidence for
the precedence of formes in sheets C through G. In these sheets the
following formes were precedent: C(i), D(i), E(i), F(i), and G(o). No type
evidence (save the doubtful e6) confirms the order for C, but almost
certain proof of the precedence of C(i) lies in the fact that a word is divided
between C4 and C4v (aſſu-/rance). If the copy was
cast off, it is
inconceivable that allowance for a divided word would have been made,
especially in a prose passage. Thus, the division of a word between formes
is proof either that the pages were composed seriatim or that the forme
containing the first part of the divided word was composed first, with the
compositor re-marking his copy for the other forme. That Much
Ado was composed by formes will be abundantly clear later. It is
already indicated by the types (B
1, B
2,
d
1) which appear in two adjacent sheets: under seriatim
composition it would be very rare to find, as we find several times in this
quarto, on the first or second page of a second sheet a type from either
forme of a first sheet. Hence, the word divided between C4 and
C4v
proves that C(i) was precedent.
Another word divided between D2 and D2v
(Bene-/dicke) confirms the precedence of D(i). A type
(B
3) used in both C(o) and D(o) further substantiates this
order: since C(i) was precedent, a type from C(o) would not have been
available for the precedent forme of D. By the same token, a type
(B
3) which is used in both D(o) and E(o) confirms the
running-title evidence for the precedence of E(i). For F I have found no
confirming type evidence. But if F(i) was
precedent, as the running-titles suggest, then there is confirming type
evidence for the precedence of G(o): namely, a type (
B
2)
used in both F(o) and G(i).
After G there was another delay in the pressroom, as shown by the
running-titles of H and I. For those two sheets new running-titles were
composed:
- Skeleton III imposed H(i), I(i);
- Skeleton IV imposed H(o), I(o).
Some of the types in these two skeletons came from the old skeletons:
| SKELETON III |
SKELETON IV |
| H1v used the running-title from
G4v; |
H1 used the running-title from G2; |
| H2 used the running-title from G4; |
H2v apparently used all new types; |
| H3v used at least some types from
G1v; |
H3 apparently used all new types (though the N may
be that from G1); |
| H4 used types from both G3 and G1 (some are questionable, but
some types from both pages are clear). |
H4v used some types from G4v
(M, h); some
others seem to be new. |
Thus, each of the new skeletons used running-title types from both of the
old skeletons. Both formes of G must have been wrought off before either
forme of H was imposed. Type evidence shows that both formes of G were
wrought off before either forme of H was composed: H(i) was composed
before H(o), for types (I
3, m
1, n
1) from H(i) are divided
between the formes of I. But a type (
B
2) from the
non-precedent G(i) appears in H(i), on sig. H2, and this could not have
happened if G(i) were in type when the compositor was working on
H(i).
The delay after G was evidently not the fault of the pressmen. While
they were working on G(o), the compositor was certainly setting G(i), but
what he was doing after that can only be conjectured. The breakdown of the
skeletons which necessitated the resetting of the running-titles indicates that
the letterpress was removed from the loosened formes and that the
running-titles then lay unused for a time. Removal of the letterpress implies
distribution of the type, but I have found no types from G(o) in H(i).
Distribution of the type implies an expected continuation of composition,
but as we have seen the composition of H did not proceed. I strongly
suspect that while the pressmen were working on G(i) the compositor was
working on some extra job—probably a small, one-sheet job which
was
wanted quickly—on which he used the type which he had distributed
from
G(o). In anticipation of his return to the Much Ado quarto,
he
laid Skeleton II
aside for re-use, but during the ensuing interval it got jostled about and
some of its type misplaced. If the extra job required two formes, perhaps
the process was repeated with Skeleton I and the type from G(i). In any
case, he sooner or later returned to H(i) of the
Much Ado
quarto, presumably while the pressmen were working on the (conjectured)
extra job. After it was composed, he salvaged what he could from the intact
running-titles of both of the old skeletons: Notice that he tended to transfer
to Skeleton III, which imposed H(i),
pairs of running-titles
from
the old skeletons (those from G1
v-G4 going to
H2-H3
v, and those
from G3-G4
v going to H1
v-H4), though
one running-title in each
pair had to be patched up with some new type. Notice also that it is only
in the skeleton for the non-precedent H(o) that we get some running-titles
which required all new types: the compositor had apparently salvaged all
he could in the earlier forme and in the first
page of H(o).
Some of this is conjectural, but there is a certain amount of
circumstantial evidence to give it credence. If there was an emergency extra
job, one wonders what it was. The answer may lie in the 2 Henry
IV quarto. Briefly to review the well-known facts, this quarto
survives in two issues of which the first (Qa) lacks a scene (III.1). At
some time after the entire first issue had been printed off, the same
compositor who had set it added the missing scene as part of a six-leaf
gathering (E) in the second issue (Qb): cancelling E3-4 of Qa, he
substituted four leaves, E3-6, newly composed, in several ways stretching
his copy to fill the four leaves. The reason for the omission from Qa
and the length of time between the completion of Qaand the
composition of E3-6 (Qb) have been subjects of much controversy, and
a thorough exploration of these questions is beyond the scope of the present
study.[11] But it is quite possible that
the omission of the scene was discovered while Sims' workers were still
printing Much Ado; and the discovery might be just the sort
of
emergency which would cause them to stop work on what they were doing.
According to the theory as described above, the types from G(o) of
Much Ado were distributed after G(i) was composed. I have
found one of these G(o) types in the added pages of 2 Henry
IV
Qb: I1 on E5v, l. 28 (Iohn). Presumably the types
from G(i)
were distributed when they became available. I have found two types from
G(i) of Much Ado in Henry Qb: m2
on
E4
v, l. 4 (mountaines), and T1 on E3, l. 15 (The).
[12] I have found many other types
which
appear in both quartos, but it is very interesting that I would find in this
one added forme three types from sheet G of
Much
Ado—and
that none of the three reappear in the precedent forme of H: I
1
reappears in H(o), T
1 in I(i), and m
2 in I(o). All these
reappearances are possible if we assume that the types from 2
Henry
IV Q
b were distributed immediately after impression, as they
probably would be, for use in
Much Ado. Of additional
interest
is the fact that when the compositor came to reconstruct some of the
running-titles for the
Much Ado quarto, he used at least one
of
the types which had printed the running-titles in
Henry
Q
b:
u in
Henry Q
b E4, and
Much
Ado
H4
v. This conjectured sequence of events is based on the
assumption
that 2
Henry IV Q
a was printed before
Much Ado, and that is the order which Greg assumed from
the
appearance of the two title-pages (
Bibliography, loc.
cit.).
Now, the fact that the two issues of the Henry quarto
survive in approximately equal numbers made Shaaber (and others) assume
logically that about half of the run was issued as Qa, the other half as
Qb: one might ask, then, why so many copies of an imperfect book
would have been distributed if the imperfection was discovered even before
its companion volume was completed. Several answers are possible. Though
these two quartos are companion volumes, it is very likely that the sheets
of the earlier volume were delivered to the publishers (Wise and Aspley)
as soon as it was completed: after all, there might be some buyers for that
first volume. If it took Sims' workmen a week or more to print the first
seven sheets of Much Ado, the copies of the
Henry
quarto could have been in the booksellers' stalls for at least a few days
(depending on how long was required for its sheets to be made into books),
and quite a number of copies could have been sold. These
could hardly be recalled when the error was discovered—even if the
publishers wanted to recall them. An alternative answer implies some
cynicism in the publishers (or in Sims, depending on who was responsible
for the original omission), who could save the cost of several hundred
sheets of paper by not making perfect the whole run of the first issue, but
perhaps rectifying only those copies not yet
stabbed, where cancellation would be the easier. At least the question does
not present an insurmountable hurdle to the theory.
Theory it remains, however, and I do not insist on it. But I do
insist—to return to the analysis of the Much Ado
quarto—that a delay after G has been proved and, more important for
our
purposes, that the order of composition through H is as I have outlined.
Finally, if H(i) was precedent, the running-titles indicate the precedence of
I(i), and I have no type evidence to confirm or dispute the indication.
Two factors make very difficult the determination of the precise times
of distribution. Although I have identified almost half a hundred types used
almost 140 times in this book, and although several italic types occur in
adjacent sheets, through sheet G I have found no roman type which
reappears earlier than two sheets after a given use. There is one exception:
e6 occurs in B(i), C(o), and D(o), but the identification is questionable.
Apparently the compositor held more roman types relative to need than
italics: no roman type occurs more than four times in the quarto, and most
occur less often; on the other hand, two italic B's occur in six
of the nine sheets and another in five. Even so, if the roman letter were
distributed at the same time as the italic, we could expect at least several
times to find a roman letter used in two adjacent sheets. That we do not
suggests that the formes (through G) were at least sometimes distributed in
two stages: the italic letter
as soon as they became available, the roman later. Perhaps another eye
might identify more roman types than I have found. But in any case the
following patterns of reappearances of roman types (excluding e6)
demonstrate the difficulty of using them to determine times of distribution:
- A types are not found in B, but both A(i) and A(o) types are found
in the precedent C(i): e3, h1, I2, ſh1, ſt1 (see
the type chart);
- B types are not found in C, but both B(i) and B(o) types are found
in both formes of D: e1, e4, m2, n2, q1,
ſh2;
- C types are not found in D, but both C(i) and C(o) types are found
in both formes of E: b1, e3, h2, I2, n1,
s1.
- D(o) types are not found in E, but are found in both formes of F:
e4, n2, ſh2, w2. But I have no D(i) types before G:
e1, f1, m2, ſ1;
- E types are not found in F. E(o) types are found in G(o) but not
in G(i): I1, ſſ1. E(i) type is found in G(i) but not in G(o):
T1.
I omit mention of the later sheets because the delay after G renders
conclusions about the distribution of F and G roman types uncertain; and
we have already seen that H(i) was distributed before composition of the
next sheet.
The other factor which complicates our problem is the pattern of
substitution of one kind of type for another. One of these involved the use
of VV in place of W.[13] The
following chart shows the number of W's (to the left of the slash) and the
number of substituted VV's (to the right of the slash) in the text on each
page in G:
| G1 |
G2v
|
G3 |
G4v
|
Total |
G1v
|
G2 |
G3v
|
G4 |
Total |
| 8/0 |
2/0 |
3/2 |
1/1 |
14/3 |
3/0 |
5/0 |
1/0 |
3/3 |
12/3. |
VV's do not occur in the other formes, which use W's in the following
numbers: A(i) 4, A(o) 3; B(o) 14, B(i) 12; C(i) 6, C(o) 3; D(i) 6, D(o) 8;
E(i) 10, E(o) 11; F(i) 10, F(o) 10; H(i) 8, H(o) 11; I(i) 10, I(o) 9. Thus,
the VV's are used where the demand for "W's" is greatest, no doubt where
the W's ran low. Yet the substituted types do not occur in a group unmixed
with normal ones. The last two "W's" on G3 are VV's, as is the first on
G4
v; from somewhere the compositor got another W for
the last page
of G(o). He could, of course, have found it lying on the floor. He could
have got it by distributing an earlier forme: clearly the supply was
replenished before G(i) was composed. (The only type evidence of
distribution of the roman letter is that E[o] was distributed before G1 was
composed [see I
1 and ſſ
1 in the type chart] and E[i] was
distributed before G2 was composed [see T
1].) But I suspect that the
distribution occurred between formes and that the mixed pattern
of W's and VV's is due to a curious practice of the compositor. Note that
on G4 the first, second, and fourth "W's" are W's; the third, fifth, and
sixth VV's. Apparently the compositor did not wait until complete
exhaustion of his supply of a letter to begin using substitutes.
This is a curious kind of aesthetics, but no other explanation suffices
for the pattern of the far more extensive substitutions of roman B's in
speech prefixes and stage directions, which were normally set in italic. The
play has an exceptionally large number of characters whose speechprefix
and stage-direction identifications begin with B: Beatrice, Benedick,
Balthaser, Bastard (John), Brother (Antonio),
Boy, and Borachio—and of course
Benedick and
Beatrice are identified often. In view of the previously demonstrated
shortage of italic B's, it is not surprising that we find frequent
substitutions of roman B's in speech prefixes and stage directions. They
occur in five of the nine sheets, on seventeen of
seventy pages. Fourteen pages contain both roman and italic "B's"; on nine
of them one or more italic
B's appear after the first roman B.
Foul cases cannot explain the mixtures, for the roman letter appear with too
much system to be explained thus. G3 is an extreme example of the
interspersing: on that page, which contains more "B's" altogether and more
substituted roman B's than any other page, twenty-three "B's" are arranged
two roman, three italic, four roman, two italic, six roman, six italic.
Although intra-page distribution might explain the last six
B's
(see below), it does not explain the earlier mixture. While extreme, this
page differs from several others only in degree: for example,
C1
v has
five italic
B's, one roman B, then two more italic; C2
continues
with three italic, but then there are two roman; the only roman B out of six
"B's" on I3
v is the second one; etc. I think the
compositor's desire
(however half-hearted) for a balanced use of the
substitute fount whenever he saw that substitution would be necessary has
been demonstrated.
The first roman substitutions occur in B(o). Twenty-one italic
B's were used in A(i), twenty more in A(o). We know that
the
compositor replenished his supply of italic letter from A(i) before
composing B1 (see B
1 in the type chart). Even so, he ran
short. The italic and roman "B's" in speech prefixes and stage directions of
B(o) occur in the following pattern:[14]
| B1 |
B2v
|
B3 |
B4v
|
Total |
| 6/0 |
6/0 |
6/1 |
10/6 |
28/7. |
The sixteen italic
B's on B3 and B4
v are
consecutive, and
the lone roman B on B3 cannot be certainly explained. Perhaps the
compositor had distributed only part of the italic types from A(i) before
composing B1 (when he knew that he would need some
B's
for
the new forme); then, after running out of
B's on B3 he
finished
the distribution.
At least we know that a distribution had occurred before
B4
v was
composed (see
B
2): thus, we know that the substitutions
were not dictated by composition in the order B4
v, B3,
followed by
distribution. In any case, I infer from these figures that the compositor
began the quarto with something like fifty
B's in his tray.
[15] Whenever in succeeding formes
we find
nearly fifty
B's in type, we can expect to find roman B's in
numbers roughly sufficient to fulfill requirements in those formes.
Before composing B(i), the compositor must have distributed the
twenty B's from A(o), though I have no type evidence of
such
distribution. In B(i) he used twelve italic B's. In C(i) he again
substituted roman B's. If he had distributed the twenty-eight
B's
from B(o) before beginning C(i), he would have had no need to substitute;
and yet he did distribute B(o) before finishing C(i): see
B
1
in the type chart. Thus, he must have distributed the italic letter from B(o)
after composing C3v; hence, we find the following pattern
of
substitution in C(i):
| C1v
|
C2 |
C3v
|
Distribute |
C4 |
Total |
| 7/1 |
3/2 |
0/2 |
B(o) italic |
6/0 |
16/5. |
Even with this fresh supply of italic B's, the previous
record of substitution indicates that the compositor would not have had
enough to carry him through C(o), which required twenty-nine
B's. He must have obtained some additional B's
during the composition of C(o), probably from B(i). The only type evidence
of such distribution is the questionable e6; otherwise I have found no
B(i) types before D(i): see e
2 and m2. The issue
here
is confused by the additional substitution of two roman B's in D(i):
| D1v
|
D2 |
D3v
|
D4 |
Total |
| 5/0 |
1/0 |
6/1 |
0/1 |
12/2. |
The roman B on D3
v is followed by six italic
B's.
According to my calculations, the compositor should have had some
half-dozen italic
B's left after composing
C(o)—assuming that
B(i) was distributed during that forme. This is precisely the number of italic
B's which he used in
D(i) before having to use the roman B on D3
v.
Immediately after using
that roman B, he must have distributed some italic letter, probably that
from C(i), enabling him to finish the page with italic
B's.
Again
there is no type evidence of such distribution: I have found no re-use of
C(i) types before E2
v. And even this sequence does not
explain the
lone roman type on D4. It could have been caused by an accident or been
part of some press correction. But this single anomalous type does not
disturb the findings thus far for the book as a whole.
After D(i) the compositor ran into no more difficulty until G(o). C(o)
was distributed before the composition of D(o): see B
3
in
the type chart. Those twenty-nine italic B's were more than
enough, with further distributions, for the next few formes. D(o) required
only six B's, E(i) sixteen, E(o) twenty, F(i) seventeen
(including
one for a Latin word in the text), and F(o) ten. Distributions of italic type
had occurred as follows: D(i) before or during E(i) (probably, though there
is no type evidence of it); D(o) before or during E(o) (see
B
3); E(i) and E(o) before or during the corresponding
formes of F (probably, though I have found no types from these formes
before G). F(i) was distributed before or during the composition of G(o):
see d
2. Despite this distribution, the compositor had to
use
many roman B's in G(o):
| G1 |
G2v
|
G3 |
G4v
|
Total |
| 3/1 |
9/3 |
11/12 |
0/1 |
23/17. |
I suppose the distribution occurred during composition of G3, after all the
roman B's and just before the concluding six italic
B's (see
p.
oo). The roman B on G4
v is, under this circumstance, as
mysterious
as that on D4.
No roman substitutions were made in G(i), which required seventeen
B's. F(o) was distributed either before composition of
G1v
or, more likely, before composition of G3v: see
B
2.
In H(i) I have found a type (B
2) from G(i) but
none
from G(o); in H(o) I have found types (B
1, I1,
W2) from G(o) but none from G(i).[16] If my conclusion is correct that
2
Henry IV E3-6 (Qb) or some other extra job was composed
after
G, and if it was in two formes, then types from G(o) went into the
precedent forme of the extra job. After that forme was composed, the types
from G(i) presumably were distributed and used in the other forme of the
extra job: they certainly were if the extra job was Henry
Qb. The compositor then returned to Much Ado H(i), but
he apparently made no distribution before
composing it; else we would expect to find in that forme types from the
(original) G(o). The G(i) type which appears in H(i) is no doubt one that
was not used on the extra job. Before composing H(o), he distributed the
precedent forme of the extra job and used several of the types from the
original G(o): see
B
1, I
1, W
2 in the type chart.
Notice that both roman and italic types were distributed. There was no
shortage of
B's in H: H(i) required eleven, H(o) thirteen.
(Notice that
Henry Q
b requires only a few
B's.)
The non-precedent forme of the (conjectured) extra job must have been
distributed by the time the compositor worked on I(i), and H(i) was
distributed by the time he set I3
v (see I
3). Yet there
were not
enough
B's for either forme of I:
| I1v
|
I2 |
I3v
|
I4 |
Total |
I1 |
I2v
|
I3 |
I4v
|
Total |
| 1/9 |
14/0 |
6/1 |
1/10 |
22/20 |
1/5 |
1/0 |
4/1 |
1/2 |
7/8. |
If the compositor composed the pages in this order and if he still had his
full complement of
B's, then I do not know why the
substitutions occur in such numbers or in such a pattern. It would seem that
he ran low on
B's on I1
v, replenished his
supply (from
H[i]?) for I2, but ran low again for the last two pages of I(i). He was still
short of
B's in I(o), but may have got some from somewhere
before composing I3. I have no evidence that H(o) was ever distributed
before the quarto was completed. An alternate explanation is that the
compositor set the pages in a different order, perhaps
| I2 |
I3v
|
I4 |
I1v
|
I2v
|
I3 |
I1 |
I4v
|
| 14/0 |
6/1 |
1/10 |
1/9 |
1/0 |
4/1 |
1/5 |
1/2. |
Such an order makes sense for I(o), but I do not know why it would have
been adopted for I(i).
If there is some doubt about some of the details of distribution and
substitution, there is no doubt whatever that the copy was cast off and the
quarto composed by formes. As we have seen, this fact is established by the
overwhelming evidence of the types which occur in adjacent sheets and of
the many substituted roman B's which, except for sheet I, occur in only one
forme per sheet. Seriatim composition cannot explain these phenomena so
well as the sequence of composition by formes which I have
described—minor discrepancies notwithstanding.
The application of this result to the critical problem of whether
Much Ado is a stratified play is simply that the
bibliographical
problem on G1 now seems likely to have been caused immediately by
composition-room practices and ultimately by the foul papers which were
the copy. Some miscalculations in casting-off are to be expected. All the
more is this true of Much Ado, which contains a high
percentage of prose: verse is simple to cast off, but accurate estimation of
the space
which manuscript prose will occupy in print is not so simple, especially if
the manuscript has revisions.
It has escaped notice, apparently, that G1 is not the only page in the
quarto which has more or fewer than the normal thirty-seven lines. A3, B3,
C4v, and E3 contain each only thirty-six lines (not
counting, for these
or any other pages, the lines which contain non-textual matter:
running-titles, signatures, and catchwords): in each case the blank line
occurs before a stage direction, whereas stage directions are not normally
separated from the context by blank lines. A3v,
B4v, C2v, F4,
and I2v have each thirty-eight lines of text, the last one
sharing a line
with the catchword.[17] Half of the
anomalous pages occur in non-precedent formes and suggest that the
compositor was adjusting for miscalculations. It might be argued that the
compositor did not care whether his pages came out to a consistent length;
but the many adjustments in apparently normal pages which I shall discuss
below reveal that he went to great pains to make his pages
consistent. Aesthetic considerations may at times have dictated a too-long
page: the thirty-eighth line on half of the too-long pages is of one word,
and nowhere in the quarto did the compositor carry a single-word line onto
a new page. But he often carried a single line of a speech onto a new page,
and a few of these overruns have only two or three words. In any case,
there is little question about three of the long pages with thirty-eight lines:
the last line of each is full and argues for a motivation out of necessity
rather than aesthetics. Finally, some of the anomalies could have been
accidental; but the number of adjustments discussed in succeeding
paragraphs argues for deliberation by the compositor.
The compositor saved one line each on A4, C1, F3, and
I2v by
crowding an overrun into the margin above or below the end of a line;
scores of other overruns (including several short ones on C1) were printed
as separate lines of type. The crowded overrun on C1 involves an entrance;
by contrast, many other entrances were printed on separate lines even when
there was room for them at the ends of verses. (Some other possibly
crowded entrances occur on F2, l. 35, and H2v, ll. 1-2,
both discussed
below; and on I2, l. 29.) The crowded overrun on
F3 involves an exit. Exits were usually printed in the margins at the ends
of lines, but in at least one instance where the exit was too long for the
space (C3, l. 29) the entire exit was printed on a separate line. Either C3
was being stretched to fill the page
[18]
or F3 was being compressed, or both. The crowded overruns on A4 and
I2
v involve the text. The crowding on the former page (ll.
4-5) may
have been necessary because of a misjudgment in the handling of the stage
direction at l. 3: here "
Exeunt. Manent Benedicke &
Claudio" occupies one line; by contrast, on C1, l. 24 (a crowded
page), "
exeunt: manet Clau." is placed in the margin after a
line
of text. Whatever the case, the different handling of the similar directions
on two pages is probably significant. The crowded overrun on
I2
v is
unquestionably significant, for the page is crowded in other ways: It
contains thirty-eight lines. The identifications "
Epitaph"
(l. 3) and "
Song" (l. 13) do not occupy separate lines as the
identification "
The Song" does on D1. And the epitaph and
song
are not spaced stanzaically as the earlier song is on
D1
v.
Compression of other sorts occurs on other pages. On
A2v, the
final speech-prefix is not indented as most are; moroever, in the final
speech the spacing between words and especially after commas is very
tight, and there are almost no final -e's. On
G4v, l. 6, two
brief speeches are set up on the same line, for the only time in Much
Ado; contrast, for example, C2v, ll. 20-22, and
C4v, ll.
9-10. H2v, ll. 1-2, presents a striking handling of stage
directions. An
entrance is marked in the margin rather than in a separate line; the
compositor's method elsewhere indicates that the motive was to save space.
As it happened, however, an exit was to be marked at the same place, and
the marginal entrance occupied the space normally assigned to exits. Faced
with this dilemma, the compositor used Dogberry's rule ("an two men ride
of a horse, one must ride behind") and placed the exit above the entrance.
This order was normal: in every other place in the quarto,
exits appear before entrances, whether on the same line or not (e.g., A4,
l. 3; B2, ll. 4-5, 27-28). In the present instance, the placing of the exit was
unfortunate,
for it left Antonio with one line to speak after he had exited. There is no
reason to suppose, however, that the compositor shared our concern for
precision in such matters: his concern was simply to get his material onto
the page, and his material was apparently longer than he had anticipated.
Possibly he did not notice that "
Bro." (Antonio), identified
in
the speech prefix, was one of the unnamed persons who were leaving
("
Exeunt amb."), or he deliberately decided that proper
placement was more important for an entrance than for an exit.
[19]
Several pages show evidence of the stretching of copy to fill a page.
B3v C3 (already discussed in another context), and
E1v run over
onto their last lines two to four letters plus a point which would not have
needed to be run over. Especially on E1v there seems to
have been
deliberate stretching. Spaces between the words of l. 36 are slightly wider
than in most similar prose passages (e.g., E3, ll. 28-30); the tightening of
these spaces and the elimination of two final -e's (in "foole"
and
"appeare") and of one of the p's in "appeare" would have left
room for "is." on l. 36. On C3 the one-word last line ("sute.") could easily
have been fitted onto l. 36 by the abbreviation of the speech prefix and the
elimination of two superfluous -e's; the same speech prefix
was
abbreviated in a speech just above. On the same page l. 26 is spaced out
(by an exceptionally unabbreviated speech prefix) so that the speech would
run over onto l. 27. On B1v, l. 1
was spaced out so that "good." would have to go onto l. 2: the speech
prefix was not abbreviated as it was elsewhere on the page; four words in
l. 1 have unnecessary final -e's; and the spacing of l. 1 is
very
wide. D2, ll. 17-18; F1v ll. 13-14; F2, ll. 10-11;
D2v, ll. 33-34;
and E2, ll. 12-13, show similar wide spacing and long spellings apparently
designed to allow the overrun of a single word onto a separate line.[20]
The fact of compositor adjustment beyond the normal needs of
"justification" of lines seems irrefutable, and at different times the
adjustments reflect a varying need, either to stretch or to compress the
copy. The likeliest explanation is that the compositor wanted to make each
page end at a predetermined point and that he could not rely on succeeding
pages to compensate for miscalculations. If, say, I (i) was already in type
when a miscalculation was discovered on I2v, the
compositor had to
adjust for the miscalculation by the end of I3. To be sure, only about half
of the adjusted pages are in non-precedent formes; moreover, the
adjustments on sig. 4v of several sheets seem surprising,
for
presumably there the compositor would have some room for error. In either
case, however, it was probably easier to adjust for miscalculations
immediately than to face the distasteful alternative of re-marking (or
allowing for the mis-marking on) whatever succeeding pages had already
been cast off. Some of the adjustments within the same formes seem to
offset each other: for example, the shortage on A3 may have been a
compensation for (accidental?) compression on A2v. But
even this
compensation is a significant adjustment showing carefulness about the
amount of copy to go on each page.
Thus, the pages of anomalous length and those showing significant
adjustments amount to more than a third of the total pages of the quarto.
And most of the adjustments were no doubt caused by miscalculations in the
casting off of the copy. The causes of the miscalculations were the high
percentage of prose and also, no doubt, partly the nature of the copy.
Greg's proof that the copy for Much Ado was the author's
foul
papers makes very likely the conclusion that, if revisions in the copy caused
the compositor to miscalculate, they were currente calamo
revisions. I would, then, answer Wilson's question "how can the
compositor have miscalculated, if the 'copy' was in order?" (p. 98) by
saying that the copy was not in perfect order, but for reasons other than
Wilson thought. This applies to the most drastic miscalculation on G1 as
well as to the others. The bibliographical problems in Much
Ado are just that—problems for the bibliographer, not for the
critic
of Shakespeare's art.
Type Chart[21]
- b1: C4v, l. 27 (be); E2; l. 30
(hobby);
H2v, l. 11 (beene)
- b2: A4v, l. 33 (humble); F3, l. 20 (bid);
I1v, l. 21
(borne)
- b3: B2, l. 18 (breake); H4v, l. 8
(bid)
-
B
1: A3v, l. 27
(Beat.); B1, l. 30
(Bened.); C4, l. 21 (Bor.);
E2v, l. 6
(Bast.); G2v, l. 31 (Beat.);
H2v, l. 12
(Bened.)
-
B
2: A3v, l. 2
(Be.); B4v, l.
21 (Beat.); C1, l. 12 (Borachio);
F4v, l. 35
(Beatrice); G3v, l. 5 (Beat.);
H2, l. 15
(Brother)
-
B
3: A3, l. 12 (Beat.);
C2v,
catchword (Beatr.); D1, l. 17 (Balth.);
E4v, l.
21 (Bor.); G3v, l. 8
(Beat.)
-
B
4: G4, l. 17 (Bor.); I2, l. 35
(Beat.)
-
d
1: A2, l. 2 (daughter); B4, l. 26
(Pedro); E2, l. 12 (Claud.); G3, l. 17
(Bened.)
-
d
2: F3v, l. 32
(Claudio); G3, l.
32 (Bened.)
- e1: B3, l. 12 (to the); D4, l. 16 (Beatrice); G4,
l. 10 (alreadie)
- e2: B1v, l. 36 (her); G1v,
l. 35 (heare);
I2, l. 4 (mingle)
- e3: A4, l. 10 (ſpeake); C2, l. 20 (her); E4,
l.
22 (the)
- e4: B2, l. 35 (prefent); D3, l. 4 (peace);
F4v,
l. 15 (mifgouernement); I1, l. 26
(fweete)
- e5: B3v, l. 15 (Berrord);
F3v, l. 13 (me); H1, l. 18
(before)
- e6: B1v, l. 7 (Hero); D3, l. 6 (doe);
H4v, l. 25
(henceforth); perhaps also C4v, l. 23
(new)
-
e
1: D4, l. 7 (Hero);
F2v, l. 12
(Leonato)
-
e
2: B4, l. 25 (Hero); D2, l. 17
(Leonato)
- f1: A2, l. 15 (of); D1v, l. 18 (foole); G4, l.
22
(efteſt)
- h1: A2, l. 21 (haue); C1v, l. 9 (Why);
F3v, l. 10
(ha); I3, l. 2 (that)
- h2: C4v, l. 20 (had); E3v,
l. 35 (child)
- h3: H3v, l. 4 (hath);
I2v, l. 24 (the
gentle)
- H1: B2v, l. 35 (Hero); E3, l. 35
(How)
- I1: B2v, l. 22 (I make);
E2v, l. 35 (I ſee); G1, l.
7 (I thy); H2v, l. 37 (I will)
- I2: A3v, l. 12 (I had); C2, l. 17 (I was);
E4v, l. 32
(I haue); I4, l. 21 (I would)
- I3: C4, l. 8 (I told); H3v, l. 24 (I aske);
I3v, l. 6
(Ioue)
- m1: C2, l. 28 (may); F4v, l. 25 (mans); H2,
l. 11 (me
[second]); I2v, l. 2 (monument)
- m2: B3v, l. 11 (my); D2, l. 6 (amaze);
G1v, l. 7 (nor
my); I1, l. 32 (man)
-
M
1: A4, l. 3 (Manent); F2, l. 2
(Mar.)
- n1: C1, l. 33 (Againſt); E2v, l. 11
(manifeſt);
H1v, l. 17 (not); I2v, l. 29
(and)
- n2: B4v, l. 2 (dauncer);
D4v, l. 2 (fortunate);
F1v, l. 9 (fine)
- q1: B2, l. 8 (muſique); D3, l. 4 (quarrel)
- s1: C4v, l. 16 (is); E2, l. 18 (his); H2, l. 28
(this)
- ſ1: D2, l. 20 (ſo); G1, l. 26 (ſo); see n. 16
- ſh1: A4v, l. 26 (ſhould); C4, l. 5
(diſho-);
F3v, l. 27 (ſhe); H1, l. 11 (ſhould)
- ſh2: B3, l. 13 (ſhall); D4v, l. 12
(ſhape);
F1v, l. 3 (faſhion)
- ſſ1: E3, l. 19 (defartleſſe); G2v,
l. 15
(inwardneſſe)
- ſt1: A2, l. 17 (muſt); C1v, l. 13
(ſtrike); G4, l.
29 (Conſtable)
- T1: B4, l. 3 (The); E3v, l. 27 (Truely); G2,
l. 6 (To);
I3v, l. 27 (The)
- T2: A4v, l. 32 (That); H1v,
l. 31 (Thy)
- w1: C1v, l. 30 (willow);
F3v, l. 37
(what); I2, l. 19 (why)
- w2: D2v, l. 15 (wiſedome);
F2v, l. 23
(were)
- w3: A3v, l. 11 (would);
I1v, l. 9 (who)
- w4: B1, l. 3 (with ſickneſſe); E2v,
l. 36 (wed);
I1v, l. 29 (betweene)
- W1: C1v, l. 2 (Whither);
F3v, l. 12 (Will); H1v,
l. 14 (Why)
- W2: G3, l. 13 (Why); H1, l. 4 (Whoſe)
- y1: A4v, l. 9 (your); H3, l. 12
(body)
