 | |  |
Printers of the Mind: Some Notes on Bibliographical
Theories and
Printing-House Practices
by
D. F. McKenzie
[*]
I
In recent years we have all come to recognize the need for what might be called 'scientific' investigation in bibliography, a phrase which at its best implies, as Professor Bowers has succinctly put it, a strict regard for certain fixed bounds of physical fact and logical probability.[1] The achievements resulting from such a concern are clear and important. In descriptive bibliography we have gained a new, accurate and rational vocabulary, and formulae that are both economic and unambiguous. In analytical bibliography — with which I am principally concerned — we have been taught to use the critical tools of comparison and analysis in a new way; and the importance of establishing press variants by collation, of detecting setting by formes, of distinguishing between compositors by spellings or impressions by press-figures is no longer questioned. Scientific bibliography, complete with its laboratory aids, has become a new orthodoxy.
Yet, as T. S. Eliot puts it, All our knowledge brings us nearer to our ignorance. In the very act of opening our eyes to new and exciting
There has of course been nothing morally reprehensible in this, for 'scientific' in such a use has meant little more than an honesty of method in respect to the physical phenomena available for study.[3] As in the physical and natural sciences, at least in their more elementary stages of observation and classification, it has, as I have indicated, simply meant placing the stress in the first instance on a finite number of particulars and drawing a conclusion from them. And since bibliographers very rarely have anything to work on but the physical evidence of the books themselves it has seemed only natural that any methodology should work within these limitations and seek its exactitude by describing and relating only the observable facts of the paper and the marks it bears.
Some distinguished bibliographers, it is true, have had their doubts. R. C. Bald remarked that "whatever bibliography may or may not be, it is not an exact science, if one understands by an 'exact' science a branch of study which arrives at its conclusions through experiment and observation and can reproduce the conditions of an experiment so that the results can be repeated and checked at any time ("Evidence and Inference," pp. 2-3). And R. B. McKerrow, late in life and writing
The effect of Bald's suggestion that bibliography "cannot claim for its conclusions the same universal validity as belongs to those of the exact sciences" is simply that we should rest content with a very different order of certainty but take the precaution of scrutinizing more frequently than we do the procedures of bibliographical scholarship. McKerrow's comment, however, runs far beyond his intention and offers a radical criticism of the very bases of all knowledge inductively derived. It is not that bibliographical inquiry differs in any essential respect from 'scientific' inquiry as described, but that the method common to both is itself logically unsound. Bibliography, as it happens, is a convenient area in which to demonstrate its unsoundness.
For whatever the short-term advantages, to assume, as we have been asked to do, that analytical bibliography must be empirically based, and to limit our knowledge to that which may be derived by inductive inference from direct observations, is to invite the obvious objection that no finite number of observations can ever justify a generalization. Bertrand Russell remarked that so far as he could see induction was a mere method of making plausible guesses. "It is far from obvious, from a logical point of view," writes Sir Karl Popper, "that we are justified in inferring universal statements from singular ones, no matter how numerous; for any conclusion drawn in this way may always turn out to be false: no matter how many instances of white swans we may have observed, this does not justify the conclusion that all swans are white" (Scientific Discovery, p. 27). David Hume had made essentially the same point: "Even after the observation of the frequent conjunction of objects, we have no reason to draw any inference of any object beyond those of which we have had experience."[4] And more graphically the Lilliputians' ignorance is ironically exposed: "Besides, our histories of six thousand moons make no mention of any other regions than the two great empires of Lilliput and Blefescu."
Nor is it simply that there is no logical way of arriving at general truths from the examination of sampled cases. To observe at all is to bestow meaning of some kind on the thing observed; to gather particular pieces of evidence is to seek those relevant to some preconceived
The inductivist in all subjects may of course freely admit that incompleteness is almost invariably a characteristic of his evidence and that his conclusions may therefore be subject to modification when new evidence comes to hand. Looked at in this way the inductive process carries a burden of assumed truth waiting to be converted into proven error: knowledge, that is, comes with the act of disproof. And until that moment arrives we may be offered conclusions that lay claim only to some degree of 'reliability' or 'probability,' based on reasonable assumptions about the comprehensiveness of the evidence used and about the predictability of past or 'normal' examples into the future.[6]
Even such a qualified attitude, however, is still inadequate to the demands of bibliography. For one thing, I doubt that 'normality,' in any serious and extended sense, is a meaningful concept.[7] For another,
But there is another way of looking at the whole problem; nor does it involve any question-begging distinctions between bibliography and 'science,' for it applies equally to both. It simply consists in recognizing the present situation of multiple 'probabilities' as the desirable one and regarding them as hypotheses to be tested deductively. I am naturally tempted to it because the productive conditions in early printing houses display an incredible variety which, if it is to be re-conceived at all, demands an imaginative facility in devising hypotheses;[9] and also because bibliographers, as a matter of fact, are becoming increasingly concerned to trace processes involving complex relationships less susceptible of conclusive demonstration. More seriously, deductive reasoning (by which a general hypothesis dictates particular possibilities or 'predictions' and rules out others) does offer a sound way to knowledge. Like induction, it is open to logical objection, for no amount of positive evidence can ever conclusively confirm an hypothesis;
These comments are philosophic commonplaces and stated so baldly must seem slightly naive. Yet they do serve to point quite sharply to the two main directions open to bibliographical inquiry. If bibliographers wish to persist as inductivists then they must diligently search out the historical facts which will alone provide a fairly accurate definition of 'normality' and offer these as a corrective to the logical defects inherent in the method. Alternatively they may confess outright the partial and theoretic nature of bibliographical knowledge, proceed deductively, and at the same time practise a new and rigorous scepticism.
In fact the nature of 'normality' as so far revealed by historical evidence suggests that the 'norm' comprised conditions of such an irrecoverable complexity that we must in any case adopt the latter course. If the 'scientific' proofs offered in some recent bibliographical analyses of older books were seen philosophically for the conjectures they are, we should I think be nearer the true spirit of scientific inquiry and the humility that always accompanies an awareness of the possibility of fresh evidence and therefore of falsification. The subject would not then be circumscribed by the demand for demonstrable proofs; rather it would be expanded in its hospitality to new ideas and in its search for fresh historical evidence in the service of disproof. Such a method would be, in the best sense, scientific.
In the following section I wish to offer some varieties of fresh evidence. Its main implication is that the very fixity of the physical bounds within which we are asked to work is inimical to the development of a sound methodology — first, because if the stress is laid on 'proof' then the small number of paradigms available to us unreasonably restricts the subject; second, because in the present state of our knowledge the finite particulars with which we must work are too few and therefore permit too many alternative generalizations to be induced from them; third, because the conception of 'normality' as a corrective to the undisciplined proliferation of generalizations misrepresents the nature of the printing process; fourth, because induction is necessarily an inconclusive method of inquiry. The evidence is consistent with my belief that we should normally proceed in our inquiries by the hypothetico-deductive method which welcomes conjectures in the positive knowledge that productive conditions were extraordinarily complex and unpredictable, but which also insists that such conjectures be scrutinized with the greatest rigour and, if refuted, rejected.
II
When the University of Cambridge set up its printing house in 1696, nearly all the records relating to the erection of the building, and then subsequently to its operation throughout the next decade, were preserved. The annual press accounts show clearly the kinds of expenditure involved in running a small printing house; and the workmen's vouchers for composition, correction and presswork, together with the joiners', smiths', glaziers', plumbers', typefounders', fellmongers', carriers', and printers'-suppliers' bills, reveal the week-by-week operations of a printing house in a detail which is, I believe, unparalleled. In addition the Minute Book of the curators of the Press provides direct evidence of printing charges and edition sizes over the period.[10] With such a wealth of primary documentary material it has been a simple matter to construct detailed production charts for the books printed, showing their progress sheet by sheet and recording the exact division of work between different compositors, correctors and pressmen. It has been a simple matter also to offer definitive details on the wages earned and the actual amount of work done by compositors and press-crews, and to construct work-flow diagrams illustrating the disposition and organization of work within the printing house as a whole on all books and ephemera in production over any one period. It must suffice for the moment simply to observe that the patterns which emerge seem to me to be of such an unpredictable complexity, even for such a small printing shop, that no amount of inference from what we think of as bibliographical evidence could ever have led to their reconstruction. To this Cambridge evidence we may now add the invaluable record of work done in the Bowyers' printing house over the years 1730-9. The ledger which records this work is in the possession of the Grolier Club of New York and is to be edited for the London Bibliographical Society by Mr Keith Maslen. The details which it gives of compositors' and pressmen's work, sometimes week by week, also permit the accurate reconstruction of working conditions, whether for one book or for the printing house as a whole. As Mr Maslen has remarked, "Work patterns are more complex at the bigger and busier London house, but in broad outline the picture is unchanged."[11]
Let me now look briefly at our ruling assumptions about the amount of work that a compositor and pressman might get through in an hour, day, or week. On these points, however carefully we qualify it, the evidence such as we have leads us to suppose a maximum setting rate of something like 1000 ens or letters an hour by one man and a printing rate of 250 impressions an hour at full press.[12] Taking each of these figures as averages which allow for imposition, proofing, correction, make-ready, washing and distribution, we may then, to estimate daily production, multiply by twelve to get as totals 12,000 ens and 3000 impressions. Finally, for weekly totals, we multiply by six to get figures of 72,000 ens and 18,000 impressions. These totals, we allow, are probably too high, but translating them cautiously into terms of actual book production, we might say that a quarto of five to six sheets, each containing some 10,000 to 12,000 ens and printed in an edition of 1200 to 1500 copies, would take about a week to produce if only one compositor and one full press were at work on it. Given the conditions mentioned, the logic is impeccable. Nor is it, as a method, foolish simply because we cannot know of occasional human aberrations from these norms. Yet I cannot forbear a quotation from George Eliot's Daniel Deronda:
The Cambridge and Bowyer papers (and they are not the only ones) make it quite clear that wages and therefore output, since the men were on piece-rates, varied considerably as between one man and another. It is not just a matter of occasional lapses or minor disparities to be cautiously conceded; it is a fundamental fact that should radically alter our whole conception of 'norms'. Moreover, any one man's income and therefore his actual output might fluctuate greatly week by week. Taking the Cambridge compositors first, one of them (John Délié) averaged 13s.5d. a week over one period of 59 weeks, and only 9s.9d. over a further period of 80 weeks. Yet on 11 May 1700 he was
Turning now to presswork, we have precisely the same situation. One of the better performances at full press in Cambridge was that of Jonathan Cotton and Robert Ponder during the week ending 24 February 1700 when for £1.4s.6d. each they worked off 10,350 sheets on four different books, averaging well over 3,400 impressions a day. But such figures and therefore such high incomes were quite exceptional. Albert Coldenhoff, working by himself at half press, earned on average 13s.3d. a week over a period of 67 weeks, and other average weekly wages earned by various workmen at half press were, in round figures, 11s., 12s., 15s. and 18s. At full press the average receipts show the same kind of range. If instead of wage bills we again look at the actual amount of work done, we can point to Thomas Green's single-handed production of 8,250 impressions one week, and only 4,750 the next; or to the work of Ponder and John Quinny who printed the following numbers of impressions week by week from mid-June to mid-July 1700: 15,200; 13,800; 9,700; 12,700; 10,700; 17,000 and so on. The hypothetical norm, you may recall, was 18,000.
Well, conclusions? Simply that our hypothetical figures are too high? Certainly that seems to be true, but the implications are I think more far-reaching. One is that we have perhaps failed in our historical sense, too readily imputing our own twentieth-century ideas and interests and the assumptions of our own society — especially our economic assumptions — to men whose attitudes to work were quite different from ours. We cannot afford to disregard contemporary social conditions and pre-Industrial Revolution attitudes. One careers adviser pointed out in 1747 that many pressmen played a great part of the time, and Benjamin Franklin took much the same jaundiced view of the British workman. As one economic historian puts it, "the conditions of life and habits of the people were all against the monotony of regular employment;" and again: "Contemporary evidence indicates that few cared to take advantage of their opportunities." The mass of labourers, said Sir William Temple, work only to relieve the present want.[14] Our society today reacts to the stimulus of high wages because modern society can satisfy a wide range of wants. But if wants don't increase, there is little point in working for anything beyond the bare necessities, and good wages will only suggest to a workman "an opportunity
The significance of this system of individual contracts — operating as far back as 1631 and even, I would claim, 1591 — has I think been overlooked. What it meant in effect was that a workman need work no harder than he had contracted to do, and only if he fell behind his contracted figure and then kept another waiting might he have to make good his colleague's loss of work. It was the master's job to accommodate these variables, not the workmen's. That the master had to make payments and organize production schedules on the assumption that men worked at different speeds is quite consistent with the Cambridge and Bowyer evidence and any other that I have seen; nor is it, so far as I know, inconsistent with any of the classically 'demonstrable' bibliographical proofs. But its consequence — the normality of non-uniformity — is an uncomfortable one for any methodology.
It might be thought that the fluctuations in output which I have noted are — in part at least — to be expected if there were too little material to keep the men working at high capacity week after week, a state of affairs all too likely in a small provincial academic press. Yet, once more, the evidence available shows a similar pattern at other presses. In fact, both the Cambridge and Bowyer records suggest that fluctuations in the volume of work would be reflected more readily in the number of workmen employed than in the actual level of work done by any one man.[19]
Where output varies so markedly from man to man and period to period, any reliance on 'norms' would seem to imply an almost irresponsibly large burden of probable error; polite concessions to occasional departures may serve a while as palliatives but general statements that can be so persistently falsified whenever any concrete evidence appears to test them are poor premises for advanced argument. Moreover, I have for simplicity here dealt mainly in averages; the actual figures are infinitely more varied and any attempt to trace the total complex patterns week by week, even with all the documentary evidence, is like trying to record the changing images of a kaleidoscope in the hands of a wilful child.
So far I have discussed, too, only the most elementary variables, and have left aside all question of edition sizes or the ways in which work was organized. Assumptions about the edition sizes of early books usually take account of the 1587 ordinance of the Stationers' Company which, with one or two exceptions, forbade the printing of more than 1250 or 1500 copies of any book from the same setting of type, although as McKerrow remarks "we have no certain knowledge of how long or how carefully the rule was observed."[20] And occasionally edition sizes have been related to the bibliographical evidence of skeleton formes, since it is understood "as a general principle that in any book printed on a single press two sets of headlines will appear only if the book was printed in an edition large enough for composition to keep ahead of presswork."[21] For the later 17th century and the 18th century the problem of variability in edition size is acknowledged to be more complex. Yet even in the early 1590's a pressman, Simon Stafford, giving evidence in court, pointed out that the number of sheets printed in any one day might vary considerably, reflecting different edition sizes, since "they had diverse numbers upon Severall bookes and the
Normally in bibliographical analysis we are concerned with a particular book, usually a work to be edited, and that great range of printing which our literary interests have not led us to examine must be largely ignored. This is as it should be for life is short and, as Professor Todd has indicated in a disarmingly amusing note, some books are more valuable than others.[23] But the consequences of such selectivity cannot be ignored if bibliography, as the study of the transmission of literary documents, is to continue to lay claim to the serious intellectual status that Greg established for it. I shall return to this point. Meantime I wish to look briefly at a very common assumption, though not a universal one, in bibliographical analysis. It is the assumption that even if the whole resources of a house were not directed towards printing the book under examination, at least one compositor and one
Again, however, should we not take pause? The occasional prospectus might serve to put us on our guard, for few require printing times of anything like even five sheets a week. And in fact some surviving Cambridge agreements offer delivery times of — as near as matters — one sheet a week. Out of some 36 books of ten or more sheets produced between 1698 and 1705, only 7 were printed at an average rate of more than 2 sheets a week. Suidas, the Greek lexicon, was printed at the rate of 3½ sheets a week, and the remainder of this group of 7 books progress on average at a rate of between 2 and 3 sheets a week each. For 14 books the average was between 1 and 2 sheets, and for 15 books it was no higher than a single sheet and often it was less than that. The Cambridge evidence cannot be discounted by noting that some of these books required careful correction, for the evidence from the Bowyer and Ackers ledgers points exactly the same way.[25] Nor does there seem to be any necessarily significant relationship between the total amount of work on hand and the rate of progress for any one book.
The force of these examples is simply that the Cambridge and Bowyer presses, like any other printing house today or any other printing house before them, followed the principle of concurrent production. Obviously the variety of runs gave greater flexibility in the organization of presswork and permitted more economical use of the
The important point, however, was made by Professor Todd many years ago. Under conditions of concurrent production, he remarked, "the book is only one of several components in a more extensive enterprise, and thus exhibits only a portion of the information necessary for its analysis. Until the other portions have been located and the various pieces reassembled in the pattern originally devised the puzzle will remain unsolvable" ("Concurrent Printing," pp. 45-6, 56). And again: "in instances of concurrent printing the bibliographer must examine all the books so related before attempting the analysis of any. To do less than this . . . is to learn little or nothing at all." These remarks cannot be repeated too often, but unfortunately Professor Todd's qualifying comments have tended to minimize their application to "the larger establishments of the eighteenth century [where] the facilities were certainly adequate for simultaneous work on several projects, involving, in some instances, independent groups of compositors and pressmen, in others, the same group intermittently employed, first on a few sheets of one book, then on a few of another." And his more immediate concern, the interpretation of press figures, whose "very presence implies unsystematic piecework engaged in conjunction with other miscellaneous endeavours," has also perhaps encouraged the belief that concurrent production may very well have been a feature of large printing houses in the 18th century but not of smaller and earlier ones.[26]
Such a view must be abandoned. No amount of historical quibbling can neutralize the plain facts of the Cambridge documents: an earlier and smaller printing house, never using more than two presses, often one and a half, and occasionally only one, habitually printed several books concurrently. So far as I am aware there is no primary evidence whatever to show that any printing house of the 16th, 17th or 18th centuries did not do likewise.
Our mistake here I think goes back to a misreading of an observation by McKerrow. He remarked that "for a printing house to be carried on economically there must be a definite correspondence between rate of composition and the output of the machine room."[27] Notice how all-inclusive his terms are: printing house, machine room. I should like to offer now two quotations which take their origin in McKerrow, and I should like you to notice how in each case McKerrow's valid general statement is transformed into an invalid particular statement. First, Professor Turner:
Such a conclusion is not inconsistent with the figures given earlier to demonstrate the variable levels of production achieved by a printing house; they simply reinforce the point that an 'economic' disposition of men and materials could only be achieved complexly — and that the fine considerations of timing implied by many studies devoted to the analysis of a single work may be a world away from the reality. Relax the time scheme ever so slightly, and a whole house of bibliographical cards comes tumbling down. In particular the correlations often traced between edition size, number of compositors, skeleton formes and presses, must look very different if translated to a context of concurrent printing. But I anticipate.
If concurrent production was much the most efficient way of running a printing house, as distinct from the most efficient method of producing a single book, how then, under these conditions, was work apportioned? What kind of range does a compositor's work, for example, show week by week? Although it was by no means rare at Cambridge for a compositor to have a monopoly on any one book, the work was usually shared. Of a sample of 118 Cambridge books, only 50, or 42%, were set by a single compositor; and if we except very short works like sermons, the percentage drops to 24. Moreover it was unusual for a compositor to work for any long period on one book to the exclusion of all others — usually he would be setting type for two or three concurrently. Of the 13 compositors whose work for Bowyer over a two-week period early in 1732 is recorded in appendix II (d), only one was engaged on one book alone.
Undoubtedly the main considerations determining the allocation of work were simply a compositor's freedom to do it and the availability of type. If a compositor had no other work on hand he would be transferred to any that might be offering and for which type was available. For normally, even when two or more compositors worked on a book, they did not work together setting sheet and sheet about. What usually happened was that one took over where the other left off and then composed as many sheets as the master found convenient or
Turning now to the other half of the equation — presswork — we must again affirm that the most efficient disposition of work, given the variables to be reconciled, could be achieved only by a highly flexible system. As with composition, the actual manner in which work was apportioned to the men would have depended in part on the number of men employed and the amount of work on hand. But regardless of the size of the plant it seems unlikely that a particular press consistently served the compositor or compositors setting a particular book. At Cambridge, it is quite clear, any press-crew might get any sheet of any book to print off, and consequently it was rare for any book of more than two or three sheets to be printed solely at one press. The production tables for books printed at Cambridge show quite conclusively that the use of two press-crews was a perfectly normal procedure and had nothing whatever to do with increasing the speed of production. If a forme was ready for printing, it went to whichever
In a large shop the distribution of work is likely to be more complex simply because there are more routes open for a book to take; but in both large and small shops there is such strong evidence of fluctuations in the number and strength of press-crews that a pattern of work must very often reflect such changes too. At Cambridge there was considerable variety in the number and composition of the press-crews, ranging from half press only during the first half of 1699, to full press only during the second half of the same year and a good part of 1700, and various combinations of half and full press during other years. Only for a brief period in 1701 were two full presses in operation simultaneously; but we find (unexpectedly, for the usual arrangement we might think would be for the two men to work together at a single press) two half presses at work during 1705, 1706 and part of 1709. There were frequent changes in the composition of the crews during the period from 1699 until early 1702. In later years the normal arrangement — if you will permit the term — was one full press and one half press. But the varying patterns make it extremely difficult to assume a norm. So too in the Bowyers' shop: 3 presses were in use between 24 Dec. 1731 and 15 Jan. 1732; 4 between 17 Jan. and 29 Jan.; 4 (but only 3½ crews) between 31 Jan. and 12 Feb.; 5 between 14 Feb. and 26 Feb.; and 6 (but possibly only 4 full and 2 half crews) between 28 Feb. and 18 Mar. (Just to complicate matters further for the analyst, press no. 7 was in use throughout the whole of this period and the press figure 7 appears on some of the sheets which it printed, but at no time were there as many as seven presses in use.)
So a press-crew, just like a compositor only more so, would usually be working on several books at a time, with "All work to be taken in Turn, as brought to the Press, except in such Work as may require Dispatch, or the Compositor will want the Letter . . .".[31] The simplest way of using the crews most efficiently was not to try to maintain a strict relationship between a particular compositor and a particular press — the varying edition sizes and varying output of the men would
It is more than time now for us to re-unite the two halves of McKerrow's equation — the 'rate of composition' and 'the output of the machine room'. We have seen that, both at Cambridge and in the Bowyers' shop, books were produced concurrently. This meant not only that several books were in production at the same time but that each workman, whether at press or case, was often engaged on several books more or less at once. If we are correctly to reconstruct the detailed operations of a printing house — even a very small one — or a true account of the printing of any one book, we must therefore do it in a way that shows the complete pattern of work in its full complexity.
The diagrams given in appendix I (a) and (b) are an attempt to do this. They show precisely how all work on hand at Cambridge was allocated between 26 Dec. 1701 and 28 Feb. 1702 and convey some impression of the flow of work.[32] Again I am tempted to quote George Eliot and say that the sheets seem to follow only what she calls "the play of inward stimulus that sends one hither and thither in a network of possible paths." Suidas, an exceptional case, demanded the almost undivided attention of four compositors working in pairs on each volume; and Crownfield, Bertram and Pokins spread their work over two to three books each. When we look at the distribution of work to the different press-crews, we note that with one exception every compositor or pair of compositors sent work to both presses; and, moreover, that the work composed during these weeks was in many cases
III
The more substantial matters discussed in the preceding section — workmen's output, edition sizes, and the relationship between composition and presswork under conditions of concurrent production — must now serve as a prelude to notes on a number of bibliographical procedures that imply quite different productive conditions. If the evidence of part II withstands challenge, it must I think be held to falsify several current hypotheses. It is not easy to summarize these but the ones I have in mind relate particularly to compositors' measures, cast-off copy, skeleton formes, proof-correction and press figures.
If one assumes that a compositor usually worked on only one book at a time he would have had no need to alter the measure to which he had set his composing stick. Changes in line measurement within any one book might therefore be taken to indicate an abnormal interruption, after which the stick was reset to a slightly different measure, or
One of the more delicate exercises in advanced analytical bibliography is tracing the pattern of skeleton formes as evidenced by running titles in order to determine the order of presswork and, it might be claimed, the number of presses used. This pattern may be related by a time scale to another showing compositorial stints, or it may of itself be taken to imply a certain number of compositors at work on the book. The relationship indicated between composition and presswork may then be employed as an analytical tool in determining such things
The pioneer study in the use of headlines, as in much else, was written by Professor Bowers over thirty years ago.[34] The association of sets of headlines with skeleton formes is now so well evidenced that it may be taken for granted, and, as Professor Bowers has also remarked, "the basic principles of the printer's use of headlines did not differ markedly in any period when books were printed by hand."[35] Where a single skeleton was used for both formes of a sheet,
The phrase 'the press was idle' is perhaps misleading since under conditions of concurrent printing the press would not be 'idle' at all but employed on another book. It has however had considerable repercussions and a great many bibliographical arguments have been constructed on the assumption that this inferred idleness could not have been the norm and must have been avoided in order to secure a balanced relationship of composition and presswork. So Professor Turner: "In order to effect the minimum press delay, the formes . . . would have had to go through the press in the following order . . .".[36] ". . . in one-skeleton work the press was forced to stand idle . . .".[37]
Professor Hinman, however, extended the argument by pointing out that if a book were printed in a very small edition, printing would be so well ahead of setting that a second skeleton would be of little use.
Yet another application was indicated by Professor Hinman when he noted that skeleton formes "have an intimate connection with various possible methods of stop-press correction" ("New Uses for Headlines," p. 222). Applying this principle in a re-examination of the proofing of Lear, Professor Bowers wrote:
The temporal relationship between composition and presswork here assumed is however capable of many permutations. One might start with evidence of presswork and seek signs of, or infer, compensating adjustments in composition; alternatively, one might begin with some knowledge of the speed of composition and then try to trace evidence of presswork to match. In the first case the evidence of presswork
Do they, for example, indicate one press or two? Professor Bowers long ago remarked that "the evidence of running-titles to determine the number of presses is often dubious in the extreme and its application hazardous."[46] And Greg expressed some doubt about the equation of skeleton formes with presses.[47] Yet such equations have been made. Professor Price, writing of Your Five Gallants, claimed that "in 1607 [Eld] had at least two presses, as the running-titles . . . show." And again, writing of Michaelmas Term, "the series of running-titles seem to imply that at least four presses worked on the book."[48] Professor Bowers: "Since regularly alternating two-skeleton formes produce maximum efficiency for one-press work, the staggered appearance of three skeletons . . . suggests the use of two presses." On this assumption, it becomes possible to observe a "mathematical regularity of transfer between the presses according to a fixed and efficient system"; hence "the three-skeleton pattern . . . is proof of two-press printing" (my italics).[49] And again: "The analysis of running titles reveals that two presses printed Q2 [Hamlet]," each press being served by a different compositor.[50] It is not surprising then to find others writing of "a normal pattern for two-compositor work in which each man serves a different press."[51] And writing of The Revenger's Tragedy, Professor Price noted that the four skeletons present suggest two presses, adding that elsewhere "Eld's pressmen clearly revealed their use of two presses by printing on different stocks of paper."[52]
The attractive simplicity of Professor Bowers' initial proposition about skeleton formes is no longer easy to discern. Nevertheless it has been repeatedly put to use in order to determine also the number of compositors engaged on a book. In an article on the printing of Romeo and Juliet Q2, for example, we are told that "variant compositorial characteristics suggest the presence of two compositors" and are assured that "the mechanical evidence of presswork corroborates that suggestion" (my italics). The quarto was printed from two skeletons recurring in regular sequence. The writers continue: "This evidence from running titles can be explained only with great difficulty as accompanying the work of one compositor; but a reasonable explanation may be offered by resorting to the hypothesis of a second press, and thus of a second compositor" (my italics).[53] Earlier, Professor Bowers had remarked that "printing by two presses must necessarily require the services of two compositors" ("Bibliographical Evidence," p. 166 n. 13). Again that a "general alternation involving the use of four skeleton formes is inexplicable for printing with one press; yet if we hypothesize two presses it follows that there must have been more than one compositor."[54] In another case, where only one skeleton-forme was used, "the running-title pattern indicates no second workman."[55] Professor Turner has written: "One skeleton ordinarily means one compositor; two may mean two setting simultaneously . . .".[56] But the clearest example of skeleton formes in relation to composition is offered by Hamlet Q2, in which "compositor X served one press and
There would appear to be enough flexibility in the principle to allow its reverse application, for, as in the case of Romeo and Juliet, two skeletons may become two presses if there is some slight evidence of two compositors (and hence "corroborate" the suggestion that there are two compositors). But since compositors have left no skeletons they are less easy to detect than headlines, and there are therefore fewer cases of presswork conditions being inferred from the prior evidence of composition.
By now I hope I have, at the very least, made clear by selection and juxtaposition the multiple and often confusingly diverse general statements inferred from the number and order of skeleton formes,[57] and laid bare the fundamental assumptions about desirable ratios between compositors and press-crews. It simply remains to ask how reliable such analyses would turn out to be if tested by analogy (a fair enough procedure, since their authors imply extended application by analogy).
Two Cambridge books may serve: Beaumont's Psyche (1702), a folio in fours, and Newton's Principia (1713), a quarto (Cambridge University Press, I, 126-7, 219-21). To take Psyche first, and in particular the quires 2E-2Z which can be related to full work-flow charts,[58] we may observe that the edition was 750; that only one compositor worked on it at a time (Bertram set 2E-2F, 2K-2Q½, 2T½-2Z; Crownfield 2G-2I, 2Q½-2T½); that four skeleton formes were in regular use; and that setting and printing of these 19 quires, or 38 sheets, took about 20 weeks in all (from mid September 1701 to 31 Jan. 1702). All I wish to establish now is the futility of attempting to infer any direct
Newton's Principia is a little easier to deal with since it is a quarto, and although there are four skeletons in all, only two of these were in use at any one time. The first printed most outer formes in sheets C-2P, the second most inner formes; in 2Q-2V their roles were reversed. New skeletons were constructed for 2X, one printing all inner formes to 3P, the other all outer formes. Under these very straightforward conditions, we might normally infer one of the following:
(a) There was a single compositor, but the press was evidently lagging behind composition; therefore two skeletons were used to save imposition time. We might also infer a fairly large edition.
(b) The edition was probably small and presswork regularly ahead of composition — especially since the text was in Latin and cuts had to be accommodated within it; but nothing would be gained by the use of two skeletons under such conditions unless, say, two compositors were at work.
(c) The reversal of skeletons at 2Q is probably insignificant, but a serious interruption undoubtedly occurred after the printing of 2V when the first two skeletons were broken up.
I trust that this example is thought to be no worse for its approximations than most such arguments, but it seems to me to point up once more the nature of our guiding assumptions about skeleton formes and the relationship of composition to presswork. In doing so it also indicates the likely error in our general statements on these matters since their claim to represent the truth can be falsified by contradictory case-studies. If, as for many books, there were no external evidence to control speculation, any of the explanations given above, suitably
I have not examined the skeleton formes in Bowyer books, but the fact that the sheets in them were often printed at one press and perfected at another must render very complex indeed any analysis seeking to relate compositors, formes and presses — even with the help of press figures. It cannot be assumed that other and earlier presses did not do likewise (without the figures); it is just that we happen to know for certain in some cases what the Bowyers did.
I wish now to broaden the argument a little by adverting to the Shakespeare First Folio and by offering yet another case-study. When Professor Hinman writes:
Now if roughly comparable books show quite different conditions of production, the above hypothesis about timing and the deduction from it about edition size will be weakened. More, its proven inability to predict the other possibilities will severely limit its standing as a statement of general application.
Volume I of the 1705 Cambridge-printed edition of the Greek lexicon Suidas is perhaps a book that is "roughly comparable" (The Cambridge University Press, I, 224-33). It is a folio in fours, with some 954 pages, about 8,500 ens per forme set double column in English Greek and English Latin with Long Primer footnotes; being started by 1 Nov. 1701 and finished by 4 Sep. 1703, it took some 22 months to print: the edition size was 1500 (150 large-paper copies, 1350 smallpaper); it was set throughout by two compositors working simultaneously on each forme; 166½ sheets were printed at full press and 72 at half press. The Shakespeare volume is a folio in sixes, contains just under 900 pages, has about 10,600 ens per forme set double column in Pica English; according to Professor Hinman's table it took about 18½ months to print but if we add the 2½ months given as the possible length of an interruption, the total would be 21 months; and Professor Hinman suggests an edition of about 1200 on the assumption that two compositors and one press were working on it more or less continuously. It would be foolish to think of these two books as being any
When we discover, however, that throughout exactly the same period as the one in which the first volume of Suidas was being printed the identical one-and-a-half presses that printed it also served three to four other compositors, two of them often working simultaneously, to print another 1500 copies of the second volume of Suidas — yet another Shakespeare Folio as it were — as well as 20 other books whole or in part and at least 23 smaller jobs, then we might be forgiven for thinking that Professor Hinman's estimate is badly at fault. Nevertheless my point is not that his equation (two compositors and one press yield 1200 edition-sheets a day) is wrong — indeed, under some conditions it might well be exact — but that it seriously misrepresents the general conditions of book production.[61]
If I am right, and there is miscalculation somewhere, the reason for it probably lies in an inference drawn from skeleton formes, and its consequences return us to the subject of concurrent printing. For the purity of Professor Hinman's argument virtually commits him to the view that the Folio was printed on one press, "the Folio press." Apart from 18 quires near the beginning, the Folio is a one-skeleton and therefore, it is claimed, a one-press book: ". . . throughout most of the book, indeed, two-press work was manifestly impossible, the same skeleton having been used in successive formes . . .".[62] Professor Hinman here means that two presses cannot have been in simultaneous use, but as he says at another point:
Professor Hinman's main stress here, and his concession, are the crux of the matter. At times of course most analytical bibliographers working in this field have to confess an imbalance of composition and presswork on a book, either implicitly by failing to pursue the point or explicitly by marking breaks in an otherwise apparently consistent pattern. When this happens, some odd jobbing at case or press is a likely and convenient suggestion to restore the ratio and avoid idleness. This opportunistic resort to a theory of concurrent printing need not be documented at length but it is important to note its circumstantial origins. For much of the Shakespeare Folio, set by one man, there is persistent evidence that the economic considerations behind the plan (at least in the form suggested) did not apply; and to explain the apparent imbalance Professor Hinman allows that 'the Folio press' must have engaged in some concurrent printing:
If I now seem to labour a point it is simply because Professor Hinman's account of the printing process reflects and therefore lends massive authority to the erroneous assumption that a book was normally put into production as an independent unit. The single skeleton forme, its association with 'the Folio press', the suggested edition size, the 'economic' balance between compositors and press-crew, all combine to reinforce this view. What is offered as exceptional — occasional concurrent printing — other evidence would suggest to be normal; what is offered as normal — a self-contained operation — is elsewhere exceedingly rare. Neither the Cambridge nor Bowyer papers would permit such inferences to be drawn from skeleton formes; neither would permit such assumptions to be made about the operations of a single press; neither would be consistent with the general economic argument put forward. Nor is it, I think, a matter of proven historical difference, as though the early 17th century were doing something that the 18th century no longer found necessary. For no differences have been constated that cannot be seriously questioned by exposing the primary assumptions. Noting at one point that most of the Folio was printed by a single press, Professor Hinman revealingly adds:
The implications of assumptions which seem to be so much at odds with usual printing conditions do not end here:
For this again is my immediate concern: the encouragement given to the view that even where there is no conclusive evidence of type-shortages, revealed by the presence of identical sorts in both formes of a sheet or in the first half of a quire, we may have setting by formes. In such cases reliance is usually placed on a 'pattern of distribution' — evidence which is used with most admirable insight and control by Professor Hinman but which, in lesser hands, and in quarto printing,
In the Shakespeare Folio, Professor Hinman noted, "As a rule . . . no forme has types in common with either the forme immediately preceding or that immediately following it" (Printing and Proof-Reading, I, p. 81); and the sequential relation of setting, printing, and distribution here implied has been adapted for the quartos. Professor Turner had earlier given it shape when, writing of Philaster, he observed
The comment called for here can only be a very general and cautionary one. Neither the Cambridge nor Bowyer records offer much positive evidence of setting by formes; although their combined testimony does demonstrate the rarity of such a practice for books other than page-for-page reprints and must therefore give us pause. We must recall too that neither Moxon, Stower, nor any other early grammar mentions casting off as a means of enabling work to be set by formes. In every case it is, as Stower puts it in his index, a "manner of calculating in order to ascertain the number of sheets a manuscript will make, the size of the letter being fixed on"[72] — that is, a device for costing, and for determining the paper required, not for organizing work. Nowadays we call it estimating. As Professor Hinman observes, actual casting off for setting would not have been undertaken without good reason, although it is true that the difficulties may have been overestimated for verse plays as distinct from full prose works (Printing and Proof-Reading, I, 73). But if, as is claimed, "the practice was by no means uncommon" and "is to be seen in first quartos that issued from many different printing houses, over a wide stretch of years" ("Shakespeare's Texts," p. 31), it is to be hoped that firmer controls will be applied in its demonstration than have hitherto been evident. In particular, arguments heavily reliant on time-schemes will rarely command that ready assent which was given to Professor Hinman's initial proof that the Folio must have been set by formes.[73] On the face of it, the most important reason for setting by formes in quarto is unlikely to have been urgency, nor even an unusually small fount, but a fount depleted because of concurrent printing — for if work overlapped on two or more books using the same fount of type, setting by formes would offer a method of making some progress with all. Professor Hinman has again led the way in showing how, in Jaggard's shop, concurrent setting of other books, reduced the supply of type for the Folio.
If copy is cast off for a quarto text, there is no compelling reason why any sheet should not be printed in any order — say, H, F, A, C, D, B, E, G. One might expect and assume a straightforward progression through the book, but there is no compelling reason for it. But order of formes through the press is an important ingredient in much bibliographical work. Where there is detectable damage in the course of printing (whether to types, headlines, rules or ornaments) it may be quite possible to prove order, and in some cases a precedent forme, at least within the same sheet, may be determined by using the Martin-Povey lamp. I am not sure whether it is evidence of this kind that led Professor Turner to write that "information about presswork, specifically the order of the formes through the press, is relatively easy to obtain and is based on evidence that is the least controvertible" ("Beaumont and Fletcher Folio", p. 36), but, so far as I can tell, order has usually been determined, not according to such evidence, but according to a pattern of headline recurrences. "Evidence from running titles indicates that outer B preceded inner through the press" (Williams, "Setting by Formes", p. 43) is a familiar form of wording; or "on the evidence of running titles, it is clear that B(o) was machined before B(i)". I confess that I have never understood what was meant when I have read such a phrase, and again I suspect that priority is based on assumptions about timing, and inferences drawn from variants, from a pattern of alternating skeletons, or from reappearing types which permit a hypothesis about distribution. In any case, whatever the internal patterns which some physical features may take within a book, there is little reason to elucidate them by constructing a time-scheme or by supposing the successive printing of all formes of the same book. I know of no evidence that obliges us to think of one sheet (or forme) being followed immediately on the press by another of the same book. There is some case for it when perfecting, none between sheets. There is too much evidence in the Cambridge books of perfectly regular patterns sustained under the most diverse conditions of concurrent printing. It is not always easy to tell when an apparently general statement is really only a singular one made of a particular book, but if it is generally true, as Professor Turner says, that "to prove the order of printing is usually to prove the order of composition of the formes" ("Beaumont and Fletcher Folio", p. 37), important textual consequences may follow from the initial assumptions.[74]
It is perhaps worth looking briefly at one Cambridge book, Bennet's Answer to the Dissenters Pleas (2nd ed., 1700). Its testimony is not all that important, since it is a page-for-page reprint, yet it does show quite vividly that, once copy is cast off, any sequence of setting and printing might be followed. The sheets were composed as follows: Bertram set E, K by 13 Jan. 1700; B, H, S by 20 Jan.; Knell set C by 26 Jan.; Bertram D, L, U and X/* by 10 Feb.; Knell completed F, G½ between 20 Jan. and 17 Feb.; G½, I by 24 Feb.; Bertram P, Q, R by 24 Feb.; N, O, T by 2 Mar.; Knell A, M by 9 Mar. The order of printing appears to have been: E, H, K, B, L, S, U, C, D, F, X/*, G, I, R, Q, N, O, P, A, M, T (Cambridge University Press, I, 192-3).
The Cambridge papers, if not those of the Bowyers, provide very clear evidence of regular proof-correction of all books printed. Such a practice may have been slightly unusual as many of the books were classical texts and the press prided itself on its accuracy, yet I think not, for London houses in the 18th century, like Cambridge, regularly set as their price for proofing one-sixth of the rate of composition.[75] There is considerable doubt, however, about the validity of applying 18th-century evidence to Elizabethan books; even Moxon's testimony from the later 17th century has been rejected as irrelevant to the earlier period. If this is so, then the 'norms' used to introduce some measure of probability into analytical accounts of the proofing and printing of earlier books will themselves be only inferential. Moxon, we may recall, notes that:
The Press-man is to make a Proof so oft as occasion requires . . . The Compositer having brought the Form to the Press, lays it down on the Press-stone, and the Press-man . . . Pulls the Proof-sheet . . . carries the Form again to the Correcting-stone and lays it down: And the Proof he carries to the Compositers Case [pp. 302-3].
And the Compositer gives the Correcter the Proof and his Copy to Correct it by: which being Corrected, the Correcter gives it again to the Compositer to Correct the Form by [p. 233].
Having corrected it, the compositor
And before continuing printing, the pressman will check
Professor Bowers has remarked, however, that
To make this point is to stress again the primary importance of continuous printing at press. Professor Hinman would doubtless agree, for he says that
But Professor Hinman's basic reason for rejecting Moxon's account as in any way relevant to the 1620's has little to do with timing. It is rather the many self-evident errors that survive in the printed text. Discussing — and dismissing — in a footnote the idea that regular proofing may have preceded that established by a collation of the variants he has observed, Professor Hinman notes:
It is a view that in general Professor Bowers would probably — and reciprocally — endorse, since he has observed that
It may seem singularly fool-hardy not to follow such authority, but I am constrained to persist in a certain incredulity. Professor Hinman's failure to list the 'many obvious errors of all kinds' at least makes one's task of qualification a little easier since he has not, in this case, sufficiently illustrated, let alone proved, his point. If Moxon, and proofing practices so well evidenced elsewhere in the century and beyond it, are to be displaced as the 'norm', the question would seem to demand rather fuller discussion than I have yet seen devoted to it.
The view that Professor Hinman is concerned to question is, essentially, Greg's — that in the Folio "the printer was not indifferent to the accuracy of his text."[76] And it may well be that if we were "once possessed of a full record of the press variants in the First Folio" (Printing and Proof-Reading, I, 227), such a view might have to be altered. Professor Hinman's labours of collation leave him in no doubt that now "there is in fact considerably more evidence that the printer was largely indifferent to the accuracy of his text" (I, 227). Yet such a conclusion is scarcely judicious; there is a great difference between the truth and the whole truth, between "a full record of the press variants" and a full record of the surviving press variants.[77]
This is not just a quibble. Traditionally the stages of proof-correction have been at least three: galley (whether page- or slip-), revises, and, as a last resort, stop-press. And let us not forget that the manuscript copy precedes all three. Now it is incontestable that these several stages can be found in increasing frequency as one moves from manuscript (how much of that survives?), to page-proofs (very few of these), to revises (slightly more of these — if some of our surviving 'proof' sheets can be so considered), to stop-press (hundreds of these). Each successive stage supersedes the previous one; once the unique copy has been set and checked, it can be disposed of, once the single galley proof has been read and checked, it can be disposed of, once the revise has been read and checked, it can be disposed of, but once printing has started, the multiple copies are preserved and of course they are available for consultation in those portions of the edition still extant. It
But one may consider the point in another way: it is easy after repeated and intense scrutiny to discover 'obvious' misprints, and it is also very easy to miss them. Each year I put some four or five senior and intelligent students through the rudiments of type-setting and when they come to correct their work they almost invariably have to do it in two or three stages because these latter-day John Leasons have failed to correct all the 'obvious' errors the first time through. Yet there was a first time (see Printing and Proof-Reading, I, 233). It is true that the more experienced students make fewer mistakes, but it is again remarkable how many of these mistakes my latter-day John Shakespeares overlook in their first attempt at correction. Much the same point is made of course by Professor Hinman when speaking of sections of plays set by Compositor E, sections "which were subjected to much more proof-reading than others — yet only to very careless proof-reading, since a great many errors nonetheless escaped uncorrected in these plays" (I, 233). Errors, that is, persist through one or more stages of proof-reading; the much-proofed page from Antony and Cleopatra leaves errors uncorrected.[79] The existence of some formes in three or more states indicates that at one or more stages of correction errors were missed which were later thought serious enough
There is of course another way of looking at the problem — and I must repeat that I am really only concerned with questions of method and that like Troubleall I merely wish to ask 'by what warrant' certain inferences are given the standing of general statements. So, a priori, one might ask whether it is likely that the essentially trivial corrections noted by Professor Hinman would have been made at all if the printer were indifferent to the accuracy of his text? Or, to put it yet another way, is it likely that a printer who put up with so many bibliographically serious delays at press in order to correct minor blemishes would fail to observe routine correction procedures in order to avoid major infidelities and the prospect of really serious delays in the last stages of production? Which brings us back to Moxon.
It is not I hope gratuitously irresponsible to suggest that none of the evidence presented from the Folio demonstrates conclusively that the procedures which Moxon describes were 'essentially different' from those of the 1620's. At the very least, the "Proofe, and Reuiewes" pulled by Jaggard for Brooke's Catalogue testify to the currency of Moxon's terms at this time, and in Jaggard's shop (McKerrow, Introduction, p. 207). We must grant that the copy for the Folio has disappeared; we must grant that the foul proofs have disappeared; but what does remain in evidence corresponds exactly to that which we should expect to find at the later stages of correction as outlined by Moxon. And it is precisely at these stages of correction that copy is not consulted. That phase is well behind, and even if some errors have persisted it is not to be expected that substantive matters will now command 'painstaking' attention. But it is to be expected that typographical infelicities — the things that catch (and for long curiously avoid) a pressman's eye through the repeated pullings — will be picked up from time to time. Turned letters, lifting spaces, uneven inking, badly
Let us now recall too what Moxon says of revises and of correction at press: the forme, being now on the bed of the press, is left there, "and if any Faults are found in any Quarter of it [the Compositor] calls to the Press-man to Unlock that Quarter . . . that he may Correct those Faults" (pp. 238-9). There are several points here: the kind of corrections documented for the Folio are unlikely to have required removal of the forme from the press. At this stage, even after as many as three proofs, a revise is pulled — but now the forme is virtually ready for printing and the likelihood is great that printing will begin while the revise is being looked at. The single copy of the revise is likely to be a pull of the full forme; in the case of the white-paper forme its chances of being preserved are negligible, but in the case of the perfecting forme this single marked sheet has a greater chance of being placed on the heap and eventually bound. Although the revise will be of the full forme, Moxon suggests that it might be attended to in sections, or quarters, so that the pressman might unlock only so much of the forme as is necessary, perhaps only a page in the case of the Folio. In many cases in the Folio both pages must have been unlocked and corrected together, yet Moxon's wording does hint that the revise itself might be read in sections. I find it most interesting therefore that Professor Hinman should write: "Four actual proof-sheets for the Folio have survived — although . . . they ought perhaps rather to be called proof pages"; and "the essential proof-reading unit, so to speak, was rather the single page than the complete forme" (Printing and Proof-Reading, I, 233, 234). I wonder, however, whether
In any case, however cursory we may think the Folio by our own standards and in the absence of author-correction, it would seem premature to conclude that what so closely corresponds to revises and stoppress correction as described by Moxon was not preceded by the routine proofing procedures which he also outlines. These may have been deficient in execution, but I cannot think that Professor Hinman's inferences justify the view that "the method of printing and proofing adopted", whether in the Folio or beyond it in the earlier 17th century, "was essentially different . . . from the method described by Moxon some sixty years later" (I, 228).
Professor Hinman, in another context, also discounts the testimony of Ashley's translation of Le Roy (1594), "since Le Roy was not a professional printer" (I, 41). Ashley writes of the pressman who is pulling:
But much the same may be said of many studies of 18th-century printing which have been conducted on the assumption that conditions then were essentially different from those of the preceding century. My own major argument in this paper is of course that productive conditions were constantly changing, not just from century to century in different houses, but from day to day in the same house, simply because concurrent printing has been the universal practice for the last 400 years. If I am right, this fundamental fact poses more problems for analytical bibliography than any minor period differences. These there certainly were, and they must be carefully charted, but we must beware of that ostensibly sophisticated historical relativism which insists on making fine distinctions between periods when virtually nothing certain is known about either element of the comparison. When, for example, Professor Todd writes that
I cannot here attempt to describe the thick web of theory spun around press figures.[81] In their incredible and perplexing variety they are eloquent witnesses to the customary conditions of presswork in any printing house, and perhaps only an imagination as fertile as Professor Todd's, and a mind as subtle, could have penetrated their mysteries. On their usefulness, let him speak:
As I have indicated elsewhere, Cambridge pressmen in the early 18th century did not normally use press figures, and the first two volumes of Suidas are the only two books of the period in which they appear (Cambridge University Press, I, 128-32). This exception is wholly due to the employment of John Terrill who came up from
Clearly the consistent use of one figure in one part of a book and of another figure in another part has in this case nothing whatever to do with simultaneous — or even successive — printing of each portion at different presses. Nor has the incidence of variously figured and unfigured sheets anything whatever to do with printing at full or at half press. If, even occasionally, a pressman was personally responsible for his choice of figure, as here, this would go far to account for the many idiosyncratic numbers or marks adopted in some books and their apparently haphazard arrangement. And if, even occasionally, a figure represents a man rather than a press, it is formally possible to argue that a sheet which shows varying figures in copy to copy simply reflects changes in the press-crew part-way through a single impression and not distinct impressions.
Indeed, whether a figure indicates a pressman or a press, such variation is in any case to be expected in books printed in very large editions. The London Magazine, for example, was printed for a time in 8000 copies. Since it comprised three and a half sheets, its printing would have kept three full presses wholly engaged for more than a week. Over such a time span — longer if the presses were required to do other work too, as Ackers' were — it is highly probable that changes would occur in the conditions under which the single impression would be completed. Changes of men, as well as changes of press, part-way through printing might well be reflected by new figures yet none of them be bibliographically significant — or at least no more bibliographically significant than the daily discontinuities incident to all printing in large editions. Naturally such evidence would rarely be left to stand alone; at the very least it would set one searching for new skeletons, partial re-settings, advertisements and so on; my point is the quite simple one that the relationship between variant states and distinct impressions must be very carefully assessed if the general conditions of work are not to be misrepresented.
But, as Dr Fleeman has already shown, there is quite conclusive evidence in the Bowyer ledger to associate press figures with a press not a man, evidence which can be corroborated by reference to the printed books themselves.[84] Bowyer numbered his presses and his accounts usually show, by their numbers and crews, the presses at which work was done. If a press-crew had a press of its own at which it regularly worked — and there is some evidence that this was so in Cambridge in 1740 — then the distinction between men and machines would virtually disappear;[85] but the Bowyer papers offer us no such simple resolution. In the examples of Bowyer books listed in appendix II (g), the figures and/or presses and/or crews can be lined up with a certitude unparalleled in any purely inferential construction. Yet it is most important to note, first, how many discrepancies there are between the records and the printed figures (especially in No. 5); second, the difficulty of assuming continuity of press-crews for any one figure; third, the irrelevance of the highest figure printed, although it designates a press, to the actual number of presses in use; fourth, that the occasional failures to figure a forme are in fact oversights and do not represent work done at a notionally blank press. It is another example of the by now familiar paradox: primary evidence definitely restricts
IV
I should not wish to deny that significant changes occurred in printing and publishing between the years 1500 and 1800; but on two counts I wish to offer some resistance to the evasive tactics of those who would for their part deny the relevance of conditions in any one period to those in another. Of course 1586 is not 1623, nor 1683, 1695, 1701, 1731, nor 1790. Yet just as Greg has argued that bibliography, as the study of the transmission of literary texts, comprehends manuscripts as well as printed books, so I wish to argue that the integrity of the subject can best be preserved and a sound methodology evolved only if we stress the similarity of conditions in all periods. Then fine distinctions may be entertained, not as period differences but as the inevitable result of variables which will differ from day to day and house to house. My second reason for resisting the too ready rejection of analogy is that very little fundamental research has been done on the history of printing. History is never so gross as when it's being formulated to serve a theory; and bibliographers with their eyes closest to the internal physical evidence have, on the whole, seen least of what lies beyond it.
The familiar picture of 'Elizabethan' printers, restricted in number, presses, edition quantities, and apprentices, and therefore constantly
But even the size of 'Elizabethan' shops has perhaps been a little too readily set at one or two presses, and the 'strict limitation' on their numbers over-stressed. The evidence would appear to be straightforward, but is it? Were there really too few printers and presses for the work available, or too many? In 1582, at a time of complaints from journeymen about lack of work, Christopher Barker said that the number of printing houses then in London (22) could be more than halved and the needs of the whole kingdom still met.[88] In 1583 the complaint of the 'poor men' of the Company was that they had too little work, and Commissioners appointed to look into the trade recommended that some privileged books be released to the poor for printing, a practice continued by the several Stocks of the Stationers' Company throughout the 17th century to assist printers who were short of work (Greg, Companion, pp. 21, 128). In May 1583 there were 23 master printers, possessing in all 53 presses: Barker had 5, Wolf 5, Day and Denham 4 each, and six others 3 apiece.[89] Although the Commissioners of 1583 recommended that no more presses be set up without license, their recommendation in respect of the existing presses was simply
When in 1613-15 the unemployed journeymen again complained about their inability to set up presses, they saw that a necessary condition of such a freedom would be access to privileged copies — otherwise there would be little work.[90] The master printers for their part were worried, or made a pretence of being so, at the "multitude of Presses that are erected among them" and by a self-denying ordinance agreed that, the King's Printer apart, fourteen of them should have 2 presses each and five of them 1.[91] Since the number of printers was 20 in all, such a rule can only mean that many of them had retained from a much earlier period, or set up over the last few years, far more presses than the numbers now set down. And since the number of printers did remain fairly constant, the agreement can only have been designed to secure a slightly more equitable distribution of work among these very printers; it implied, therefore, considerable under-production in the smaller shops.
Are we to take it that this decision by the Court of Assistants was immediately enforced? There is no evidence of it. Eight years later, on 5 July 1623,
The Star Chamber decree of 1637, reporting that of 1586 as defective in some particulars so that divers abuses had arisen to the prejudice of the public, attempted to keep the number of master printers down to 20 (there were 22), but the number of presses, always more difficult to restrict, was allowed to rise (Greg, Companion, p. 105). By 1649 there were apparently some 60 printers in London and by 1660 the number had increased to 70, though it is doubtful whether there were so many printing houses. The Licensing Act of 1662 provided that no more printers be licensed until the number had fallen again to 20, but nothing was done to enforce the ruling and for the next thirty years it was openly ignored.[93] In 1668, after the great fire, there were 65 presses in 26 houses, the King's Printer having 6, two others 5
All I wish to ask now is whether there is much conclusive evidence that 'Elizabethan' conditions in any one printing house were utterly distinctive from those common in the 18th century? Expansion of the trade there undoubtedly was but except in a very few cases (Watts in the 1720's, Bowyer, Richardson and Strahan mid-century — a half dozen at most out of upwards of a hundred?) what we get in the 18th century is proliferation, multiple establishments, not an exceptional growth in any one. The fundamental conditions of work in each remain unchanged. Or again, if it is urged that the multi-press shops of the 18th century have few parallels in the early 17th century, one is entitled to ask quite directly how Ackers' and the Bowyers' three-, four-, and five-press shops of the 1730's differ from those of Barker, Wolf, Day, Denham, all of whom had more than three presses, and the other six printers who in 1583 had three presses each. Or one might ask how significantly, in terms of size, either group differs from those listed in 1668 (eleven of whom had three or more presses). And even if it is conceded that none of the printers limited to two presses in 1615 and 1623 would have grossly exceeded this number, a certain scepticism is still permissible since there is no evidence at all that they conformed to the ruling and much that they refused to. Or take the question the other way round: grant for the moment that most Elizabethan shops were two-press or one-press houses; it may then be asked what the distribution of presses was within 18th-century houses. How many had two, how many had only one? In the second week of October 1732 even Bowyer had only two (See appendix II (f).). For the rest, no one knows, and even press figures may not tell us.
Is the problem any simpler if we look at edition quantities? It is true that these were limited by regulation in Elizabethan-Jacobean
Professor Todd has probably done most to set the general attitude towards 18th-century printing and thereby also to imply that conditions in the earlier periods were considerably different. He writes:
V
Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose. It's the only way I can explain the central paradox of this paper: that all printing houses were alike in being different. Despite my misgivings about 'norms' I have tried to suggest that all printing houses were more alike over the years than many bibliographers are prepared to allow: in size of plant, variability of work force, edition quantities printed, use of standing formes, proofing procedures, and most important of all in printing several jobs concurrently. I have stressed the supreme importance of primary evidence and I have tried to use it to expose and curb what I take to be erroneous inferences. In doing so, I have also tried to demonstrate more generally some weaknesses inherent in the inductive method. When the standing of general statements is damaged by contrary examples, the inductivist usually seeks a safe retreat in some form of historical relativism; I have tried to show how naive this can be. I am sure that Professor Hinman is right, though my sense pursues not his, when he stresses the importance of the new knowledge which will come "in the light of information about printing-house personnel and printing-house methods that is only now becoming known" ("Shakespeare's Texts", p. 26).
Bright lights will cast deep shadows, and I must confess to a feeling of mild despondency about the prospects for analytical bibliography: limited demonstrations there may certainly be, although they may require a life-time's devotion to make them; wherever full primary evidence has become available it has revealed a geometry of such complexity that even an expert in cybernetics, primed with all the facts, would have little chance of discerning it. But, as Nestor says, "In the reproof of Chance lies the true proof of men". Bibliography will simply have to prove itself adequate to conditions of far greater complexity than it has hitherto entertained. To do so, it will inevitably
There is, however, a final paradox. Bibliography has nothing to do with bibliographies, and I only hope that new knowledge about productive conditions will prove disturbing enough to widen the gap between the two. The essential task of the bibliographer is to establish the facts of transmission for a particular text, and he will use all relevant evidence to determine the bibliographical truth. Author and subject bibliographies have a completely different function and it would be preposterous now to demand of them any great bibliographical sophistication. This would appear to be an argument in favour of degressive bibliography. Not at all; the phrase is meaningless. Booklisting may be as degressive as it wishes, bibliography never. Greg made the point so clearly that it's surprising to find that there is still any fuss about it; if any notice had been taken, we should have less half-baked bibliography and cheaper book-lists.[98]
But finally, if our basic premise is that bibliography should serve literature or the criticism of literature, it may be thought to do this best, not by disappearing into its own minutiae, but by pursuing the study of printing history to the point where analysis can usefully begin, or by returning — and this is the paradox — to the more directly useful, if less sophisticated, activity of enumerative 'bibliography'. This it is which gave us the Pollard and Redgrave and Wing S.T.C.s, both of which have been of inestimable service to the study of history, life, thought — and bibliography — in the 16th and 17th centuries. It will be a pity if history, life, thought — and bibliography — in the 18th century are long deprived of a comparable service.
Note to the appendices: The information offered in the following appendices is intended merely to provide supporting evidence for the argument of this paper. It is not offered as a contribution to the detailed bibliographical study of either the books or the printing houses mentioned in it. The original documents referring to the Cambridge University Press are printed in my Cambridge University Press, 1696-1712: A Bibliographical Study (1966): the two charts printed here continue those given as Table 15 in that book. The details of the Bowyer printing house are taken from the Bowyers' record of composition and presswork over the years 1730 to 1739; the volume in which this work is recorded is in the possession of The Grolier Club and is being edited for publication by Mr Keith Maslen. An edition of the ledger of Charles Ackers, printer of The London Magazine, was recently published by the Oxford Bibliographical Society. The appendices are long, but I have deliberately multiplied the examples to illustrate fully the variety of conditions under which the books mentioned came to be made, by different men, at different periods, and in different places.
| 1. Composition | Work Done | Earnings |
| I. Lance | Evidence of Christian Religion O, P, Q, R and making up three formes | 13. 8. |
| R. Dennett | Bill for Sugar Colonies 2 sheets | £3. 0. 7. |
| Remarks on Lives of the Saints B, C, D, E, F, G, H4 | ||
| Life of Cleveland, vol. I Title | ||
| B. Baddam | Cocks's Catalogue M1, N8 | £1. 6.11. |
| Charitable Corporations D | ||
| Hymns for St Dunstan's | ||
| Sacrament A, B, C, E, F4 | ||
| B. Tarrott | Charles XII F4 | 14. 8. |
| Letter to Member of Parliament 2 sheets | ||
| Sacrament D half sheet | ||
| D. Gaylord | Calmet's Dictionary 3Z, 4A, 4B, 4C | £2. 6.11. |
| Articles of Limerick A, B and over-running several times | ||
| Charles XII M, N, O4 | ||
| G. Grantham | Gyles's Catalogue | 8. 2. |
| Voyages 6O2, Q2, R2, U4, Y2, A4 | ||
| G. Hills | Charitable Corporations A, B4, [C6] | £1.11. 8. |
| Charles XII F4 | ||
| Tully's Offices L12, M12 | ||
| C. Micklewright | Votes 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 | £2.12. 6. |
| Tully's Offices L12, M12, N12 | ||
| J. Morgan | Charles XII C5, D8, E5, F8, G8, H4 | £1. 7. 8. |
| Hutchinson B | ||
| Gentleman Farrier | ||
| R. Holmes | Scripture Vindicated D6, E, F, G, H, I, K, L | £1.10. 4. |
| Proposals for Hippocrates | ||
| T. Hart | Votes 14, 15, 16, 17 | £2.10. 8. |
| Memoria Technica M, N, O | ||
| Wesley's Job Y, Z and correcting Y | ||
| T. Allestree | Gyles's Catalogue A4 | £1. 7. 2. |
| Voyages 6O2, 6P4, 6S2, 6X2, 6Z2, 7B4, 7C2 | ||
| J. Nutt | Moss's Sermons B, C, D, E, F | [£3.15. 0.] |
| Charles XII B, C11, D8, E11, F8, G8, H12, I | ||
| Scheme to Pay National Debt 2 pages ditto imposing 3 half sheets | ||
| Hymns for St George ye Martyr | ||
| Greek quarto page of Mr Dwight | ||
| An English folio page |
| 1. Composition | Work Done | Earnings |
| D. Redmaine | Bankrupts' Bill A, B | £3. 5. 4. |
| Votes 28, 29, 30, 31, 32 | ||
| Spenser H, I, K | ||
| Injured Innocence G8, H4 | ||
| R. Dennett | Remarks on Lives of the Saints H4, I, K | £1.11. 8. |
| Injured Innocence I2, K8 | ||
| Voyages 7O, 7P2 | ||
| } | Sacrament F4, G8, H8, I8, K8 | £2. 7. 2. |
| B. Baddam} | Letter to Archbishop 7 half-sheets | |
| B. Tarrott} | Gentleman Farrier C, D, E, F | |
| } | Tully's Offices N12, O | £3. 9. 0. |
| G. Hills} | Ditto Brevier Index P12 | |
| C. Micklewright} | Bankrupts' Bill C, D, E, F | |
| Life of Cecil A, B | ||
| R. Holmes | Scripture Vindicated, Part II M, N, O, P, Q, R, S | £1.11. 1. |
| Evidence of Christian Religion S, T, U1/4, Title ¼ | ||
| G. Grantham | Voyages 7E1, 7G3, 7H2, 7K2, 7L4, 7M3, 7Q2, 7R3, 7T2, 7U2 | £1.18. 2. |
| Injured Innocence H4, I6 |
| D. Gaylord | Calmet's Dictionary 4D, 4E, 4F, 4G, 4H | £1.15. 2. |
| Charles XII F8, Correcting N | ||
| C. Knell | Voyages 6S2, 6T2, 6Z2, 7C2, 7D4, 7E1, 7H2, 7I1, 7M1, 7N4, 7R1, 7S4, 7T1 | £1.17. 1. |
| G. Karver | Cocks's Catalogue M7 | £1.13. 9. |
| Chiselden's Syllabus | ||
| Cock and Bull 3 half-sheets | ||
| Hutchinson C8 | ||
| W. Diggle | Voyages 6B2, 6T2, 6X2, 6Y2, 7E2, 7F1, 7G1, 7I3, 7K2, 7P2, 7Q2 | £1.12. 2. |
| Nelson quarter-sheet | ||
| T. Hart | Votes 23, 24, 25 | £3. 0. 8. |
| Wesley's Job 2A, 2B, 2C2 Correcting Z, 2A | ||
| Mr Chishull's half-sheet | ||
| Memoria Technica P | ||
| Bill for Parton Pier | ||
| J. Nutt | Moss's Sermons A, a, G, H, I ditto 2F half-sheet, vol. I | £1.12. 6. |
| Chiselden one page | ||
| Two Great Primer receipts |
| 1. Composition | Work Done | Earnings |
| P. Grantham | Bacon's Letters X, Y | 9. 1 |
| M. Newsted | Clifton's State of Physick A, a, b | 18. 1. |
| O. Nelson | Rosalinda D, E, F | 18. 1. |
| R. Holmes | Fryar Bacon 3G, 3H, 3I, 3K, 3L, 3M 1 page | £1. 1. 5. |
| T. Clark | Essay on Colonies B, C, D, E | £1. 0. 1. |
| D. Gaylord | Thuanus Part VI 6A, 6B, C 2 pages | £1. 0. 1. |
| 2. Presswork | [Press 1] | [Press 2] | |
| 6000 | Latin Testament | L | |
| 300 | Chiselden's Tables | XXV, XXVI | |
| 1500 | Swift's Miscellany | B1 | B1 |
| 100 | Middleton's Sermon | Titles | |
| 750 } | |||
| 150 } | Thuanus | 6A2 | 3R2, 3S2 |
| 5 } | |||
| 1000 | Rosalinda | B2 | |
| 220 } | 3D2, 3F2, 3G2 | ||
| } | Fryar Bacon | ||
| 30 } | |||
| 500 | |||
| } | Clifton's State of Physick | M2, N2 | |
| 25 } | |||
| 200 } | |||
| } | Bacon's Letters | S2 | |
| 25 } | |||
| Receipts for Duke of Somerset | π | ||
| ------ | ------ | ||
| Earnings: | £1.15. 8. | £1.12. 6. |
- Books Printed by William Bowyer: Some Case-Histories
- 1. Voltaire, Histoire de Charles XII. [London, 1731.]
- 12°: A — P6 (all printed by Bowyer) Copy: BM. 10761.df.14.
- Production: 7½ sheets; edition 750; composition 5s.3d. per half sheet; presswork 1s.9d. per half sheet; price per sheet 24s.; finished by 13 Jan. 1732; volume I only printed by Bowyer. On this and the next three items, see the article by K.I.D. Maslen, The Library, 5th ser. XIV (1959), 287-93. (The date of completion, 13 Jan., is derived from the Bowyer Paper Stock Ledger. Bowyer's account of work done covers the entire period from 26 Dec. 1731-29 Jan. 1732, hence the later date given below.)
- Composition: A — P, T. Hart 29 Jan.
- Presswork: A, 1 (Diggle/Peacock) 29 Jan.; B, C, 3 (Franklin/Reynolds) 29 Jan.; D, I (Diggle/ Peacock) 29 Jan.; E, F, 3 (Franklin/Reynolds) 29 Jan.; G-M, 1 (Diggle/Peacock) 29 Jan.; N, O, 2 (unnamed) 29 Jan.; P, 3 (Franklin/Reynolds) 29 Jan.
- Figures: 1 — A4, D3v, G6v, H6v, I3v, K6, L3v, M4v
- 2 — N6v, O3v
- 3 — B6v, F6v, P4v
- Note: Franklin's and Reynolds' failure to figure C and E.
- 2. Voltaire, History of Charles XII. London, 1732.
- 8°: A1 B — N8 O1 (all printed by Bowyer) Copy: BM. 153. p. 23.
- Production: 12¼ sheets; edition 1000; composition 6s.; presswork 4s.; price per sheet 18s.; begun by 29 Jan. 1732; finished by 26 Feb. 1732; first 12¼ sheets only printed by Bowyer.
APPENDIX II (g)
- Composition: K, L, Lane 29 Jan.; B, C11, Nutt 12 Feb.; C5, D8, Morgan 12 Feb.; D8, E11, Nutt 12 Feb; E5, F8, Morgan 12 Feb.; F8, G8, Nutt 12 Feb.; G8, H4, Morgan 12 Feb.; H12, I, Nutt 12 Feb.; M, N, O4, Gaylord 12 Feb.; correcting in N, Gaylord 26 Feb.
- Note: F may have been set twice. In addition to the claims listed above, the following are recorded: F4, Hills 12 Feb.; F4, Tarrott 12 Feb.; F8, Gaylord 26 Feb.
- Presswork: Bi, Bo, 2 (unnamed) 29 Jan.; Ci, Co, 1 (Diggle/Peacock) 29 Jan.; Di, 2 (unnamed) 29 Jan.; Do, Eo, 3 (Franklin/Reynolds) 29 Jan.; Ei, 1 (Diggle/Peacock) 29 Jan.; Fi, 2 (unnamed) 29 Jan.; Fo, 7 (Franklin/Reynolds) 29 Jan.; Gi, 1 (Diggle/ Peacock) 29 Jan.; Go, Ho, 2 (unnamed) 29 Jan.; Ko, 2 (unnamed) 29 Jan.; Ki, Li, 7 (Jones/Perry) 29 Jan.; Lo, Mi, 1 (Peacock/Perry) 12 Feb.; Mo, Ni, 2 (unnamed) 12 Feb.; No, 3 (Franklin/Reynolds) 12 Feb.; A/O, 1 (Peacock/Perry) 12 Feb.
- Figures: 1 — C1v, C8v, E7v, G1v, L6v, M7v
- 2 — B7, B8, D1v, F8, H2v, K7, M7, N8
- 3 — D7, E7, G7, I8, I8v, N8v
- 7 — F8v, H5v, K5v, L5v
- Note: Go claimed by 2 but figured 3; the changes of crew for presses 1 and 7; the same crew worked both presses 3 and 7 within the same period, so that both cannot have been in use at once.
- 3. Voltaire, Histoire de Charles XII ('Seconde Edition, révùe corrigée / par l'Auteur'). [London, 1732.]
- 8°: A — K8 L4 (all printed by Bowyer) Copy: BM. 611.c.12 (1).
- Production: 10½ sheets; edition 1000; composition 8s.; presswork 4s.; price per sheet 21s.; begun begun by 18 Mar. 1732; finished by 8 April 1702; first 10½ sheets only printed by Bowyer.
- Composition: A-H, Dennett 18 Mar.; I, K, Dennett/Tarrott 25 Mar.; L½, T. Hart 25 Mar.
- Presswork: (None of the crews is named) Ai, Ao, 7 — 18 Mar.; Bi, 5 — 18 Mar.; Bo, Ci, 3 — 18 Mar.; Co, 1 — 18 Mar.; Do, 3 — 18 Mar.; Di, 7 — 18 Mar.; Ei, 4 — 18 Mar.; Eo, 1 — 18 Mar.; Fi, 3 — 18 Mar.; Fo, 7 — 8 Apr.; Gi, 3 — 8 Apr.; Go, Ho, 7 — 8 Apr.; Hi, 2 — 8 Apr.; Ii, 3 — 8 Apr.; Io, 7 — 8 Apr.; Ko, 4 — 8 Apr.; Ki, L, 2 — 8 Apr.
- Figures: 1 — C7, E7
- 2 — H8, K1v, L3v
- 3 — B7, C8, F8, G8, I7v
- 4 — E6, K2v
- 5 — B8
- 7 — A2v, A3v, D1v, F2v, G2v, H7, I5
- Note: Fo was also claimed by press 2 on 18 Mar.; Do (press 3) unfigured.
- 4. Voltaire, History of Charles XII ('The Second Edition, Corrected.'). London, 1732.
- 8°: A6 B — N8 (all printed by Bowyer) Copy: BM. 10761.bb.39.
- Production: 12 sheets; edition 2000; composition 6s.; presswork 8s.; price per sheet 28s.; finished by 18 Mar. 1732 (as all claims are dated 18 Mar., dates are omitted from the tables of composition and presswork given below); sheets B — N only printed by Bowyer.
- Composition: B16, C4, Grantham; C6, Knell; C6, D2, Allestree; D11, Grantham; D3, E6, Knell; E6, Allestree; E4, F7, Grantham; F5, Knell; F4, G4, Allestree; G8, Grantham; G4, H4, Allestree; H4, Knell; H8, I10, Grantham; I2, Allestree; I4, K4, Knell; K8, Grantham; K4, L3, Allestree; L7, Knell; L6, M6, Grantham; M8, Allestree; M1, Nutt; M1, N4, Knell; N8, Grantham; N4, T. Hart.
- Presswork: (None of the crews is named) Bo, 4; Bi, 2; Co, 3; Ci, Do, 7; Di, Eo, 1; Ei Fi, 2; Fo, Go, 3; Gi, 4; Hi, 3; Ho, 2; Ii, 1; Io, Ki, 7; Ko, Lo, 3; Li, 1; Mi, 7; Mo, Ni, 2; No, 1.
- Figures: 1 — D7v, E7, L8, N8v
- 2 — B8, E1v, F5v, H2v, M2v, N1v
- 3 — C8v, F7, G8v, H7v, L7
- 4 — B2v, G1v
- 7 — C1v, D7, I2v, K1v, M1v
- Note: Ii (press 1) and Ko (press 3) are unfigured.
- 5. Baxter, Glossarium Antiquitatum Britannicarum. London, 1733.
- 8°: A 4 a8 B — T8 U4 Copy: BM. 7708.b.5.
- Production: 20 sheets; edition 500; composition 10s.; presswork 2s.4d.; price per sheet 22s.; begun by 10 Oct. 1732; finished by 2 June 1733.
- Composition: (Thomas Hart set the text unaided except as noted for the 8 pages of C) B, 7 Oct.; C8, Hart/Micklewright 11 Nov.; C8, D, 25 Nov.; E, F8, 2 Dec.; F8, G, 9 Dec.; H8, 20 Jan.; H8, I8, 27 Jan.; I8, K, L8, 24 Feb.; L8, 3 Mar.; M8, 10 Mar.; M8, N8, 17 Mar.; N8, O, 24 Mar.; P, Q, R, 14 Apr.; S, T8, 28 Apr.; T8, 5 May; U8, 12 May; A, a, 26 May.
- Presswork: Bo, 2 (Mazemore/Peacock) 11 Nov.; Bi, 1 (Classon/Diggle) 11 Nov.; Co, 3 (Bradley/Vicaris) 2 Dec.; Ci, Di, Do, 1 (Classon/Diggle) 2 Dec.; Eo, 2 (Mazemore/ Peacock) 9 Dec.; Ei, 1 (Classon/Diggle) 9 Dec.; Fi, Fo, 2 (Mazemore/Peacock) 23 Dec.; Gi, 3 (Dennis/Duff); Go, Hi, Ho, 2 (Mazemore/Peacock) 27 Jan.; Ii, Io, 2 (unnamed) 24 Feb.; Ki, Ko, 1 (Diggle/Reynolds) 3 Mar.; Li, 3 (Dennis/Duff) 24 Mar.; Ni, 2 (Clarke/Mazemore) 24 Mar.; No, 7 (Jones/Needham) 24 Mar.; Oi, 7 (Jones/Needham) 14 Apr.; Oo, 3 (Duff/Mazemore) 14 Apr.; Pi, 2 (Clarke/Dennis) 14 Apr.; Po, Qi, 1 (Milburne/Reynolds) 14 Apr.; Qo, 3 (Duff/Mazemore) 14 Apr.; Ri, Ro, 2 (Clarke/Jones) 28 Apr.; Si, 1 (Classon alone) 28 Apr.; So, 3 (Duff/ Mazemore) 28 Apr.; T (unrecorded); A/Ui, 1 (unnamed) 26 May; A/Uo, 2 (unnamed) 26 May; ai, ao, 7 (Brooker/Clarke) 2 June.
- Figures: 1 — A3v, C1v, D3v, E7v, K8, K8v
- 2 — a5, a6, B8v, F7, F8, G4v, H1v, H7, I7, I8, L2v, P7v, R7v, U3v
- 3 — C8v, L7v, M7v, M8v, O8v, Q7, S6v, T7v, T8v
- 5 — G5v
- 7 — N7, O7v
- Note: Press 1 failed to figure Bi, Po, Qi, Si; Press 2 failed to figure Eo, Ni, Ro; Press 3 printed Gi but the forme is figured 5; both ai and ao were printed by Press 2 but both are figured 7; the changing composition of the crews at each press:
- Press 1: (a) Classon/Diggle (b) Diggle/Reynolds (c) Milburne/Reynolds (d) Classon alone (e) unnamed
- Press 2: (a) Mazemore/Peacock (b) unnamed (c) Clarke/Mazemore (d) Clarke/ Dennis (e) Clarke/Jones (f) unnamed
- Press 3: (a) Bradley/Vicaris (b) Dennis/Duff (c) Duff/Mazemore
- Press 7: (a) Jones/Needham (b) Brooker/Clarke
- 6. Spenser, The Shepherd's Calendar, ed. J. Ball. London, 1732.
- 8°: A8 al B — Q8 R6 (—R6) Copy: BM. 11607.f.7.
- Production: 17½ sheets; edition 700 Demy, 60 Royal, 4 Writing Royal; composition 5s.6d.; presswork 2s.6d.; price per sheet 20s.; begun by 27 Nov. 1731; finished by 10 June 1732.
- Composition: (Daniel Redmaine set the whole text except probably for P, A, a) B8, 27 Nov.; B8, C, D, 24 Dec.; E — G, 29 Jan.; H — K, 26 Feb.; L — O, 18 Mar.; P (unrecorded unless it be George Karver's claim below); Q, 25 Mar.; R, 8 Apr.; 1 sheet [=P?], 6 pages, Karver 27 May; 4 pages, Grantham, 10 June.
- Presswork: Bi, 2 (Davies/Mazemore) 24 Dec.; Bo, Ci, 1 (Diggle/Peacock) 24 Dec.; Co, 3 (Diggle/Peacock) 24 Dec.; Do, 2 (unnamed) 29 Jan.; Di, Eo, 1 (Diggle/Peacock) 29 Jan.; Ei, Fo, 2 (unnamed) 29 Jan.; Fi, 3 (Franklin/Reynolds) 29 Jan.; Gi, 1 (Peacock/Perry) 12 Feb.; Go (unrecorded, but figured 7); Ho (unrecorded, but figured 5); Hi, 1 (Peacock/Perry) 26 Feb.; Io, Ii, 2 (unnamed) 18 Mar.; Ki, 3 (unnamed) 18 Mar.; Ko, Li, Lo, 1 (unnamed) 18 Mar.; Mo, 2 (unnamed) 18 Mar.; Mi, No, 4 (unnamed) 18 Mar.; Ni, 1 (unnamed) 18 Mar.; Oo, 7 (unnamed) 25 Mar.; Oi, Po, 4 (unnamed) 25 Mar.; Pi, Qi, Qo, 1 (unnamed) 25 Mar.; Ri, 2 (unnamed) 25 Mar.; Ro, 7 (unnamed) 25 Mar.; Ai, 7 (Jones/Perry) 10 June; Ao, a, 2 (Hardicke/Mazemore) 10 June.
- Figures: 1 — B2v, C7v, D6, E2v, G7v, H1v, K2v, L4v, L5v, P2v, Q7
- 2 — A7, D2v, E1v, F2v, I2v, I8, Q3v, R4
- 3 — C7, K8
- 4 — M8, O3v, P6
- 5 — H2v
- 7 — A7v, B6, G8v, O2v
- Note: Bi claimed by 2 (Davies/Mazemore) but figured 7; Franklin's and Reynolds' failure to figure Fi; the failure of press 2 to figure Mo; the failure of presses 1 and 4 to figure Ni and No; Qi claimed by 1 but figured 2; the failure of press 7 to figure Ro; Diggle and Peacock worked both presses 1 and 3 within the same period.
- 7. T. Lobb, A Treatise of the Small Pox. London, 1731
- 8°: A4 a — c8 B — 2H8 2I6 (— 2I6) Copy: BM. 1174.h.4
- Production: 34 sheets; edition 750; composition 8s.; presswork 3s.6d.; price per sheet 18s.; begun by 30 Jan. 1731; finished by 14 Aug. 1731.
- Composition: B, Redmaine 30 Jan.; C, D, E8, H8, correcting C, Redmaine 20 Feb.; E8, F, G, Hart/Holmes 20 Feb.; H8, I, K8, Hart 6 Mar.; L-O, Hart/Holmes 20 Mar.; P-S, Hart/Holmes 3 Apr.; T-Y, Z4, Hart/Holmes 17 Apr.; X12 [sic = Z12?], Morgan 17 Apr.; 2A, 2B, 2C8, Hart/Holmes 1 May; 2C8, Hart/Holmes 15 May; 2D8, Hart 29 May; 2D8, Holmes 29 May; 2E12, Holmes 5 June; 2E4, 2F-2H, 2I4, Holmes 26 June; a, b, Imperfection B, 2I4, Holmes 17 July; 2I4, A, c, Holmes 31 July.
- Presswork: Bi, 7 (unnamed) 6 Feb.; Bo, 2 (unnamed) 6 Feb.; Ci (no record); Co, 7 (unnamed) 20 Feb.; Di, 2 (unnamed) 20 Feb.; Do, 3 (unnamed) 6 Mar.; Ei, 7 (unnamed) 20 Feb.; Eo, 1 (unnamed) 20 Feb.; Fi, Fo, 7 (unnamed) 20 Feb.; Gi, 1 (unnamed) 6 Mar.; Go, 3 (unnamed) 6 Mar.; Hi, 3 (unnamed) 6 Mar.; Ho, 7 (unnamed) 6 Mar.; Ii, 3 (unnamed) 6 Mar.; Io, Ki, 2 (Clarke/Ward) 20 Mar.; Ko, 3 (Collyer/ Franklin) 20 Mar.; Lo, 2 (Clarke/Ward) 20 Mar.; Li, Mi, Mo, 1 (Diggle/Mazemore) 20 Mar.; Ni, 7 (Farmer/Peacock) 20 Mar.; No. 3 (Collyer/Franklin) 20 Mar.; Oi, 7 (unnamed) 3 Apr.; Oo, 3 (unnamed) 3 Apr.; Pi, 2 (unnamed) 3 Apr.; Po, Qi, 3 (unnamed) 3 Apr.; Qo, Ro, 2 (unnamed) 3 Apr.; Ri, 1 (unnamed) 3 Apr.; Si, 1 (Diggle/Mazemore) 17 Apr.; So, Ti, 3 (Franklin/Reynolds) 17 Apr.; To, 7 (Farmer/Peacock) 17 Apr.; Ui, 1 (Diggle/Mazemore) 17 Apr.; Uo, Xo, 2 (Clarke/ Ward) 17 Apr.; Xi, 3 (Franklin/Reynolds) 17 Apr.; Yi, 1 (Diggle/Mazemore) 1 May; Yo, 3 (Franklin/Reynolds) 1 May; Zo, 2 (Clarke/Ward) 1 May; Zi, 2Ai, 2Ao, 7 (Farmer/Peacock) 1 May; 2B (no record); 2Co, 3 (Franklin/Reynolds) 5 June; 2Ci, 2Do, 7 (Farmer/Peacock) 5 June; 2Di, 2 (Clarke) 5 June; 2Ei, 2Eo, 2Fo, 7 (Farmer/Peacock) 26 June; 2Fi, 2Gi, 3 (Franklin/Reynolds) 26 June; 2Go, 7 (Farmer/Peacock) 26 June; 2Hi, 2Ho, 1 (Clarke/Diggle) 17 July; 2I (not recorded); ai, 7 (Farmer/Peacock) 31 July; A, ao, bi, bo, 1 (Clarke/Diggle) 31 July; co, 3 (Franklin/Reynolds) 31 July; 1000 loose titles, 2 (Clarke/Davies) 14 Aug.
- Figures: 1 — a8v, b2v, c8, E7, G8, I2v, L8, M4v, M5v, R7v, S1v, U8, 2H7v
- 2 — B7, K8, L7, P7v, Q8v, U5, X8v, Z7, 2D7v
- 3 — c7, D7, G7, H7v, K7, O2v, P7, Q7v, S7, T8, Y7, 2F7v, 2G7v
- 7 — a5v, B8, C7, E8, F6v, F7v, H8v, N3v, O8, T5, 2A8, 2B1v, 2B7, 2C7v, 2E2v, 2F4v, 2H6v, 2I4
- 8. A Defence of the Present Administration. London, 1731
- [8°: A — D4] Copy: not located
- Production: 2 sheets; edition 3000; composition 5s.6d. per sheet; presswork 1s.2d. per 500, 3s. per 1500; price per sheet 16s. for the first 1000 and 5s. per ream for the rest; finished by 16 Jan. 1731.
- Composition: A, B, J. Hart 16 Jan.; C, D, Micklewright 16 Jan.
- Presswork: 'first edition':
- Press 1 (Diggle/Mazemore) A, B, D, 500; A, C, 1500; A, B, C 500
- Press 3 (Collyer/Franklin) C, 500; B, D 1500; D 500
- 'second edition':
- Press 3 (Collyer/Franklin) A, C 500
- Press 7 (Clarke/Peacock) B, D 500
- 9. E. Peyton, Catastrophe of the Stuarts. London, 1731
- 8°: A2 B — I4 K2 Copy: BM. 110.e.23
- Production: 4½ sheets; edition 750; composition 8s. per sheet; presswork 3s. per sheet; price per sheet 18s.; begun by 24 Dec. 1730; finished by 16 Jan. 1731.
- Composition: B — F, Grainger 24 Dec.; G — K, Bell 16 Jan.
- Presswork: B, C, 1 (Diggle/Mazemore) 24 Dec.; D, 3 (Collyer/Franklin) 24 Dec.; E, F, 3 (Collyer/Franklin) 16 Jan.; G, 1 (Diggle/Mazemore) 16 Jan.; H — K/A, 7 (Clarke/Peacock) 16 Jan.
- Figures: 1 — B4, C2v, G1v
- 2 — F4
- 7 — H4v, I3v, K1v
- Note: The evidence that Bowyer printed this pamphlet is of more than passing interest, for on Wednesday 27 Jan. 1731 its printer and publisher were taken into custody for publishing a libel. The bookseller, Charles Davis, was bound in a recognizance to appear at the King's Bench, which recognizance was continued for a period of 12 months, when he was discharged without penalty (Whitehall Evening Post, No. 1921, 28 — 30 Jan. 1731). Bowyer debits Davis with the printing costs, but the imprint reads 'Printed for T. Warner'.
- 10. Regnault, Philosophical Conversations. 3 vols. London, 1731
- vol. 1 — 8°: A8 (—A8) B — 2C8 (— 2D8)
- vol. 2 — 8°: A2 . . . Q — 2D8 (all printed by Bowyer)
- Copy: BM. 536.h.6-7
- Production: vol. 1 — 26 sheets; vol. 2 — 12 sheets; 38 sheets in all; edition 1000; composition 6s.; presswork 4s.; price per sheet 22s.; begun by 16 Jan. 1731; finished by 26 June 1731; in vol. 2 sheets A and Q — 2D only printed by Bowyer.
- Composition: vol. 1: B — D, Gaylord 16 Jan.; E9, Micklewright 16 Jan.; E7, F — H, Gaylord 16 Jan.; I, K8, Grainger 30 Jan.; K8, L — O, P8, Gaylord 30 Jan.; P8, Q, Gaylord 6 Feb.; R — X, Y8, Gaylord 20 Feb.; Y8, Gaylord 6 Mar.; Z, 2A, 2B, Gaylord 20 Mar.; 2C, 2D8, Bell/Gaylord 1 May; A8, Gaylord 29 May.
- vol. 2: Q, Bell 3 Apr.; R — X, Bell/Gaylord 1 May; Y — 2D, Bell/Gaylord 15 May; 16 pages Long Primer, Bell 29 May; two titles, Bell 26 June.
- Presswork: vol. 1: Bi, 3 (Collyer/Franklin) 16 Jan.; Bo, Co, 1 (Diggle/Mazemore) 16 Jan.; Ci, Do, 3 (Collyer/Franklin) 16 Jan.; Di, 1 (Diggle/Mazemore) 16 Jan.; Ei, Eo, 3 (Collyer/Franklin) 16 Jan.; Fo, 3 (Collyer/Franklin) 30 Jan.; Fi, Gi, 7 (Clarke/ Peacock) 30 Jan.; Hi, Ho, Ii, 3 (Collyer/Franklin) 30 Jan.; Io, Ki, 2 (Farmer/Wardman) 30 Jan.; Ko, 1 (Diggle/Mazemore) 30 Jan.; Li, 3 (Collyer/Franklin) 30 Jan.; Lo, 7 (Clarke/Peacock) 30 Jan.; Mi, 1 (unnamed) 6 Feb.; Mo, Ni, 7 (unnamed) 6 Feb.; No, 3 (unnamed) 6 Feb.; Oi, 1 (unnamed) 20 Feb.; Oo, Po, 2 (unnamed) 20 Feb.; Pi, Qi, 7 (unnamed) 20 Feb.; Qo, 3 (unnamed) 6 Mar.; Ri, 2 (unnamed) 6 Mar.; Ro, Si, 7 (unnamed) 6 Mar.; So, To, 3 (unnamed) 6 Mar.; Ti, 2 (unnamed) 6 Mar.; Ui, Uo, 1 (Diggle/Mazemore) 20 Mar.; Xi, 3 (Collyer/Franklin) 20 Mar.; Xo, 7 (Farmer/Peacock) 20 Mar.; Yo, 2 (unnamed) 3 Apr.; Yi, Zi, 7 (unnamed) 3 Apr.; Zo, 3 (unnamed) 3 Apr.; 2Ai, 7 (Farmer/Peacock) 17 Apr.; 2Ao, 3 (Franklin/Reynolds) 17 Apr.; 2Bo, 3 (Franklin/Reynolds) 1 May; 2Bi, 2Ci, 7 (Farmer/Peacock) 1 May; 2D, A (unrecorded).
- vol. 2: Qi, 1 (Diggle/Mazemore) 1 May; Qo, Ri, 3 (Franklin/Reynolds) 1 May; Ro, 1 (Diggle/Mazemore) 1 May; So, Ti, 3 (unnamed) 15 May; To, 1 (unnamed) 15 May; Uo, 3 (unnamed) 15 May; Ui, Xi, Yi, Zi, 7 (unnamed) 15 May; Xo, Yo, Zo, 7 (unnamed) 29 May; 2Ai, 2 (unnamed) 29 May; 2Ao, 3 (Franklin/Reynolds) 29 May; 2B (unrecorded); 2Co, 1 (unnamed) 29 May; 2Ci, 2 (unnamed) 29 May; 2Di, 3 (Franklin/Reynolds) 26 June; 2Do, 7 (Farmer/Peacock) 26 June; 'A3' and titles to vols 1, 2 and 3 also claimed by Diggle alone at press 1.
- Figures: vol. 1: 1 — A7, B7, C7, D8, K7, L8v, M1v, N2v, R7, T1v, U6, U7
- 2 — C7v, I6v, K5v, O8v, R8, X7v, Y8v,
- 3 — F7, G7, H7, I8, O8, Q7, S5, Z8v, 2A7
- 7 — F5v, G5v, L7v, M5, N7v, P2v, Q8, S5v, T7, X8v, Y8, Z3v, 2A7v, 2B1v, 2C7v
- vol. 2: 1 — Q1v, R2v, T2v, Z1v, 2C8v
- 2 — U7v, Y7v, 2A6, 2C6
- 3 — U7, 2D5v
- 7 — S3v, X3v, Y5, 2B1v, 2B2v
| Volume | Part Nos. | Edition | Reprints | Total Edition | |||
| I | 1 | sig. B | 1750 | + | 350 + | 1000 | 3100 |
| sig. C | 2000 | + | 1100 | 3100 | |||
| sig. D | 2000 | + | 1100 | 3100 | |||
| 2 | 2000 | + | 1000 | 3000 | |||
| 3 | 2000 | + | 1000 | 3000 | |||
| 4 - 33 | 2500 | ||||||
| II | 34 - 79 | 2250 | |||||
| III | 80 - 85 | 2250 | |||||
| 86 - 103 | 1750 | ||||||
| 104 - 117 | 1500 | ||||||
| VI | 118 - 164 | 1500 |
| Monthly Numbers | 1st Edition | Reprint | Total |
| Apr. 1732 - Dec. 1732 | [2500] | 1500 | [4000] |
| Jan. 1733 - May 1733 | 4000 | 1250 | 5250 |
| Jun. 1733 - Jul. 1733 | 4000 | 1500 | 5500 |
| Aug. 1733 | 4500 | 1250 | 5750 |
| Sep. 1733 - Oct. 1733 | 5000 | 1250 | 6250 |
| Nov. 1733 | 5000 | 1000 | 6000 |
| Dec. 1733 - May 1734 | 6000 | 6000 | |
| Jun. 1734 - Dec. 1734 | 6250 | 6250 | |
| Jan. 1735 - Dec. 1736 | 7000 | 7000 | |
| Jan. 1737 - May 1737 | 6000 | 6000 | |
| Jun. 1737 - Jul. 1737 | 6000 | 1000 | 7000 |
| Aug. 1737 | 6000 | 6000 | |
| Sep. 1737 | 6500 | 6500 | |
| Oct. 1737 - Jul. 1739 | 7000 | 7000 | |
| Aug. 1739 - Dec. 1740 | 8000 | 8000 | |
| Jan. 1741 - Dec. 1741 | 7500 | 7500 | |
| Jan. 1742 | 7000 | 1000 | 8000 |
| Feb. 1742 - Jul. 1743 | 8000 | 8000 | |
| Aug. 1743 - Dec. 1743 | 7500 | 7500 | |
| Jan. 1744 - Jan. 1747 | 7000 | 7000 | |
| Feb. 1747 - Dec. 1747 | 7500 | 7500 |
| 4 Dec. 1733 | 19th ed. | 10,000 |
| 4 Nov. 1734 | 20th ed. | 10,000 |
| 5 May 1735 | 21st ed. | 10,000 |
| 11 Oct. 1735 | 22nd ed. | 10,000 |
| 23 Sep. 1736 | 23rd ed. | 10,000 |
| 11 May 1737 | 24th ed. | 10,000 |
| 28 Jan. 1738 | 24th ed. [sic] | 15,000 |
| 19 Jul. 1738 | 'a new Edition' | 10,000 |
| 26 Jan. 1739 | 'a new Edition' | 10,000 |
| 17 Jul. 1739 | 'a new Edition' | 5,000 |
| 25 Oct. 1739 | 'a new Edition' | 10,000 |
| 3 Oct. 1740 | 'a new Edition' | 20,000 |
| 17 Jun. 1741 | 'a new Edition' | 20,000 |
| 3 May 1742 | 'a new Edition' | 20,000 |
| 14 May 1743 | 'a new Edition' | 5,000 |
| 18 Aug. 1743 | 'a new Edition' | 10,000 |
| 6 Jan. 1744 | 'a new Edition' | 5,000 |
| 12 May 1744 | 30th ed. | 5,000 |
| 9 Aug. 1744 | 'a new Edition' | 5,000 |
| 23 Oct. 1744 | 'a new Edit' | 5,000 |
| 10 Jan. 1745 | 'a new Edition' | 5,000 |
| 16 Mar. 1745 | 'a new Edition' | 5,000 |
| 7 Jun. 1745 | 'a new Edit.' | 5,000 |
| 10 Sep. 1745 | 'a new Edit.' | 5,000 |
| 14 Dec. 1745 | 'a new Edition' | 5,000 |
| 12 Apr. 1746 | 'a new Edit.' | 5,000 |
| 4 Jul. 1746 | 'a new Edit.' | 5,000 |
| 13 Oct. 1746 | 'a new Edit.' | 10,000 |
| 13 Feb. 1747 | 35th ed. | 5,000 |
| 27 Apr. 1747 | 'a new Edition' | 5,000 |
| 29 Jul. 1747 | 'a new Edition' | 5,000 |
| 2 Nov. 1747 | 'a new Edition' | 5,000 |
| 1 Feb. 1748 | 'a new Edition' | 5,000 |
Notes
This paper was originally given in a very much shorter form as a lecture at the University of Illinois, the University of Virginia, and the University of California (Los Angeles) in May 1963. In revising it I have tried to take account of more recent work but I am very conscious of the injustices I am doubtless doing to those whom I quote out of context. May I plead lack of space and offer the reflection that although methodological discussion has a way of seeming unfair to those criticised, it's only a form of intellectual house-keeping, dependent upon and tributary to the greater work of others? Mottos for the day might be: "Profound truths are not to be expected of methodology" (Sir Karl Popper) and "Methodology is at best a shortcut for the inexperienced" (R. C. Bald).
Bibliographers' use of the word may be consulted at the following points: W. W. Greg, Collected Papers, ed. J. C. Maxwell (1966), pp. 76, 220-3; R. B. McKerrow, Prolegomena for the Oxford Shakespeare (1939), pp. vi-viii; R. C. Bald, "Evidence and Inference in Bibliography," reprinted in A Mirror for Modern Scholars, ed. Lester A. Beaurline (1966), pp. 2-3; Fredson Bowers, On Editing Shakespeare (1955), pp. 41, 95, 99, 124; Textual and Literary Criticism, pp. 70, 81, 96, 100-1, 115; Bibliography and Textual Criticism (1964), pp. 72, 74, 90; J. Hazel Smith, "The Composition of the Quarto of Much Ado about Nothing," SB, XVI (1963), 10.
The point is neatly made by Robert K. Turner, "Reappearing Types as Bibliographical Evidence," SB, XIX (1966), 198: "hypothesis is essential to observation." Professor Hinman has a relevant paragraph: "When I first learned from the indisputable evidence furnished by individual types that the Folio was indeed set throughout by formes rather than by successive pages, I was probably as much surprised as anyone else. But should I have been? To prove setting by formes required evidence not adduced before; but not to have suspected it sooner was to have failed to see facts — or at least the probable implications of a complex of related facts — that had long been staring us all in the face, so to speak." The point is made "in order to suggest a not unimportant general principle of bibliographical investigation" — Printing and Proof-Reading of the Shakespeare First Folio (1963), I, 50-51.
The difficulties created by limited criteria are indicated by Antonin Hruby in "A Quantitative Solution to the Ambiguity of Three Texts," SB, XVIII (1965), 153-4; and Professor Bowers warns of the inadequacy and dangers of inferential arguments in "Some Relations of Bibliography to Editorial Problems," SB, III (1950), 54, 57. Professor Bowers' most thorough and challenging investigation of the problem is offered in chapter III of Bibliography and Textual Criticism. He suggests three orders of certainty, "the demonstrable, the probable, and the possible" (p. 77), and stresses the importance of "the postulate of normality" as a necessary curb on the number of plausible conjectures that human ingenuity might otherwise devise (pp. 64, 70, 72). See also Hinman, "The Prentice Hand in the Tragedies of the Shakespeare First Folio: Compositor E," SB, IX (1957), 3.
Professor Bowers remarks: "No one can argue that we know all about the printing processes of the past, and it is just as obvious from time to time this postulate of normality has fostered incorrect explanations based on imperfect evidence." (Bibliography and Textual Criticism, p. 72). The cautionary note is justified, not because the elementary physical actions of setting, transferring, imposing, inking, proofing, printing from, or distributing type differed from century to century, nor even because the kinds of work and sizes of shops differed, but because the amount of work done and the relations between those performing it differed from day to day. "Normality" in one sense is limited, though within its limitations valuable; in the other sense it doesn't exist.
"The subject as practised": it could be urged that no science is a disembodied activity, but only the activities of its practitioners, and that it is defined less by its body of commonly accepted knowledge than by the dynamics of difference. Robert K. Turner's "The Composition of the Insatiate Countess Q2," SB, XII (1958), 198-203, for example, does not offer mechanical demonstration and proof from the physical and inexorable evidence of the printing house so much as a proliferation of unrelated, arbitrary hypotheses to explain away inconsistencies.
May I recall what Greg said of Professor Dover Wilson? "He is of imagination all compact. And imagination, I would remind you, is the highest gift in scientific investigation, even if at times it may be the deepest pitfall." (Collected Papers, p. 217). I have myself a pleasant recollection of meeting Professor Dover Wilson in May 1958. "I always believe," he said, "that if you have a good idea you should send it out into the world. If it survives, fine. If it doesn't, then at least you know it's wrong." The serious implications of that last phrase are only now beginning to dawn on me.
The primary records are printed in volume II of my Cambridge University Press, 1696-1712 (1966).
AUMLA (May, 1967), p. 109. Dr J. D. Fleeman's discovery of the Bowyer ledger was reported in The Times Literary Supplement, 19 Dec. 1963, p. 1056, and some of its details were put to use in his note "William Somervile's 'The Chace,' 1735," PBSA, LVIII (1966), 1-7.
Professor Hinman conveniently summarizes the evidence and offers some very careful qualifications of it in Printing and Proof-Reading I, 39-47. Although his method and purposes must in fact assume a norm, he is quite clear about the foolishness of trying to pretend that there may not have been considerable variation from it (cf. I, 46).
I must express my gratitude to Dr Léon Voet, Curator of the Plantin-Moretus Museum for supplying me with photocopies of entries from the Mémorial des Ouvriers for the months of Jan.-Mar. 1622. Dr Voet has brought together much valuable information in "The Making of Books in the Renaissance as told by the Archives of the Plantin-Moretus Museum," PaGA, X, no. 2 (Dec. 1965), 33-62. The most relevant Oxford document is a "Bill Book" for the years 1769-72 which I cite by courtesy of the Printer to the University. John Wilson's "Case-Book" was brought to my attention by Miss Frances M. Thomson who is preparing an edition of it. I should also mention Mr Rollo G. Silver's contributions to this journal, especially "Mathew Carey's Printing Equipment," SB, XIX (1966), 85-122, which form a valuable addition to the primary documentation on early printing houses. There is a more general point to be made. Greg, recognizing the level of generality that any respectable discipline must seek, insisted that bibliography comprehend manuscript as well as printed texts. Similarly it might be argued that ancient and modern book production should not be too readily separated. Mr Simon Nowell-Smith has shown in his 1966 Lyell Lectures how more recent books can be usefully (and disturbingly for such concepts as "edition" and "issue") documented from publishers' archives. The growth of such bibliographical work in the modern period will, if the subject is to keep its integrity, enforce a greater realism in discussing the productive conditions for earlier books.
E. S. Furniss, The Position of the Laborer in a System of Nationalism (1920), p. 234. Furniss remarks that "The English laborer . . . responded, when prices fell or wages rose, so that he could satisfy his wants with diminished effort, by 'keeping holiday the remainder of his time'." (p. 235). The contemporary evidence cited by Furniss is full and detailed. D.C. Coleman, in "Labour in the English Economy of the 17th Century," Economic History Review, 2nd ser. VIII (1956), 280-95, points out that modern writers have underrated the recurrent problem of unemployment and comments that half-employment was often the rule. He cites Thomas Manly's note of 1669 that "They work so much fewer days by how much the more they exact in wages;" remarks that this was said of "agricultural workers and of industrial, of urban as well as of rural;" and adds "Irregularity of work . . . was not confined to the working week. The working day at one end of the scale, the working year at the other, were both very different from their counterparts in the modern industrialized community" (p. 291).
Such an argument was in fact used in litigation in 1592 when Benjamin Prince, a journeyman employed by John Legate, said he need only do what he could whereas Parker, an apprentice, had to do as his master bade him. See "Notes on Printing at Cambridge, c. 1590," Trans. Cambridge Bibliographical Society, III (1959), 102. The whole question of full or partial employment, however, needs to be related to the evidence we have of journeymen's grievances. It may be that under conditions of widespread unemployment an increase in part-time work is to be expected rather than a severe restriction of the labour force to the few men of highest efficiency.
Mechanick Exercises, ed. H. Davis and H. Carter (1958), p. 327; see also p. 328 for the phrase "their Contracted Task." Professor Hinman (Printing and Proof-Reading, I, 42-45) considers some of the evidence for daily output at press and case (e.g. the Gay-Purslowe contract of 1631, Moxon, Richardson's figures of 1756, and early 19th-century rates for setting). He clearly considers the figures rather high and suggests that they were not consistently attained. I am sure he is right, notwithstanding abundant evidence elsewhere for high press output — see "Notes on Printing at Cambridge," p. 101 n., where a number of references are collected. Testimonies for 1592 claim 2500 impressions as the normal daily amount worked off for 3s.4d. per press-crew. But it is also stated that under the rules of the London Company a pressman was to have his full contracted wages if on any day, by agreement with the master, fewer sheets were printed. Several 19th-century ones could be added, but Blackwell's estimate of 2500 impressions per day, cited by Mr Rollo G. Silver, is among the most important ("Mathew Carey's Printing Equipment," p. 102). The real point, however, is not that these figures were norms, except perhaps for very large edition quantities, but the accepted maxima. The evidence is consistent with the hypothesis of extreme variability within the limits indicated, but any "norm" derived from the evidence can be repeatedly falsified and its predictive value thereby seriously impaired. It may be noted that Plantin's pressmen and compositors received differential payments, as did those of Crownfield and Bowyer, for formes of varying difficulty, and in 1592 differential rates applied to presswork according to the size of type.
The point about fluctuations in the number of workmen is admirably made, in the case of Plantin, by the charts in Raymond de Roover's "The Business Organization of the Plantin Press in the Setting of Sixteenth Century Antwerp," De Gulden Passer, XXXIV (1956), 104-20. The figures there given show the absolute variations, but in addition the ratios of workmen to presses and of compositors to pressmen may be easily calculated as at January in every year from 1564 to 1589. To take two years: on 4 Jan. 1572 there were 13 presses in use, 23 pressmen, 23 compositors, and 7 other employees; on 2 Jan. 1574 there were 16 presses in use, 32 pressmen, 20 compositors, and 4 other employees. The smaller English shops could not have tolerated this degree of fluctuation, but where the records survive the ratios of compositors to pressmen to presses can be shown to have varied quite markedly. The Cambridge and Bowyer presses illustrate a disturbingly large variance in weekly, monthly and annual levels of production; Strahan's and Charles Ackers' output differed significantly from one year to the next; and the charts given of Oxford printing in F. Madan's The Oxford University Press: a Brief Account (1908), although based only on surviving works, are a graphic corrective to an over-reliance on "norms." I know of no direct evidence that obliges us to exempt Elizabethan and Jacobean printers from such fluctuations, although the legal limitation on the number of printers has tempted some to assume continuous output at maximum levels. There is much evidence that some Elizabethan printers constantly lacked work.
Hinman, "New Uses for Headlines as Bibliographical Evidence," English Institute Annual, 1941 (1942), p. 209.
"Notes on Printing at Cambridge," p. 101. See also P. Hernlund, "William Strahan's Ledgers: Standard Charges for Printing, 1738-1785," SB, XX (1967), 89-111, esp. p. 104 where the frequencies of certain edition sizes are given. Professor Hinman notes the folly of setting edition sizes to suit bibliographical equations (Printing and Proof-Reading, I, 40), but bibliographers sometimes forget that the number printed is a marketing decision which bears no relation whatever to printing conditions, although a master would of course be concerned to apportion all the work on hand in the most economic way.
I hope it will be agreed without my listing references that such an assumption is widespread. Professor Todd at least agrees, for he once wrote, in iconoclastic vein: "Implicit in most accounts of press-work on hand-printed books is the convenient assumption that, at a given time, the entire resources of the shop are devoted to the production of a single work . . .". — "Concurrent Printing: An Analysis of Dodsley's Collection of Poems by Several Hands," PBSA, XLVI (1952), 45. Jobbing work may be invoked as a convenient way of explaining apparent delay, but even in Professor Hinman's discussion of the First Folio, which takes some account of other works printed by Jaggard in 1621-3 (see I, 16-24), the fundamental work patterns are traced in isolation from the other work on hand as though the Folio contained in itself all the evidence of its production.
The Bowyer books tabled in appendix II (g) may serve as examples. The several editions of Voltaire were printed quite quickly (nos. 1-4); the 20 sheets of Baxter, a more difficult text, and the 17½ sheets of Spenser, both took 33 weeks (nos. 5 and 6); Lobb's 34 sheets, on the other hand, were finished in only 29 weeks; more direct evidence of the different speeds of work on different books can be seen in appendix II (a) — (f). For Ackers, see A Ledger of Charles Ackers, Printer of 'The London Magazine' (1968), p. 19. Few printers, however, were as slow as Nicholas Okes was with one work: in five years he had printed only 6 sheets of a book called Speculum Animae — Jackson, Records of the Court of the Stationers' Company, 1602-1640 (1957), p. 180.
Professor Todd later wrote of concurrent printing as a practice "extraordinary in the seventeenth century" but "commonplace in the eighteenth" — "Bibliography and the Editorial Problem in the Eighteenth Century," SB, IV (1951-2), 46. G. Thomas Tanselle, "Press Figures in America," SB, XIX (1966), 129-30, also writes of the need for fuller information on all books being handled within a shop at one time.
Stower, The Printer's Grammar (1808), p. 376, makes the point: "Compositors and pressmen are at all times dependent on each other; they therefore demand the constant attention of the overseer [my italics] in order that nothing may occur to cause a stoppage or standing still to either party." In a smaller office this concern for oversight and disposition of the work on hand would naturally have been the master's.
See Table 11, Cambridge University Press, I, 106-7. For Bowyer, see appendix II (e) where, of 14 compositors listed for the two-week period, only one (C. Knell) worked on a single book.
The two charts may be compared to those given as Table 15 in The Cambridge University Press. Taken together, the five charts show completely different patterns of work at five distinct stages of a continuous working period of five months, although many of the men and books involved are the same.
Bowers, "Bibliographical Evidence from the Printer's Measure," SB, II (1949-50), 153-67, esp. pp. 155-6: "The most elementary and easily discerned cases which can be determined by measurement occur when . . . printing of a book is so materially interrupted that when work is resumed a different measure is inadvertently employed." See also "Purposes of Descriptive Bibliography, with Some Remarks on Methods", Library, 5th ser. (1953), p. 18 n., and "Underprinting in Mary Pix, The Spanish Wives (1696)," Library, 5th ser. (1954), p. 248. John Smith, The Printer's Grammar (1755), pp. 197-8, suggests other reasons why measures, ostensibly the same, might differ. For Moxon, see Mechanick Exercises, p. 203.
"Notes on Running-Titles as Bibliographical Evidence," Library, 4th ser. (1938), pp. 318-22. In 1909 A. W. Pollard had drawn attention to the recurrent headlines in Folio 2 Henry IV (Shakespeare Folios and Quartos, pp. 134-5).
"The Printing of Beaumont and Fletcher's The Maid's Tragedy, Q1 (1619)," SB, XIII (1960), 201; see also pp. 202, 204, 208 for assumptions about timing.
Ibid. In the article from which the last three quotations are drawn, Professor Turner suggests that "the erratic time-re-lationship" and therefore the imbalance in the relationship of composition and presswork may reflect variable copy, extra help with distribution, or indicate that "typesetting was attended by serious difficulties" — the textual implications of the latter inference are important.
"The Printers of the Beaumont and Fletcher Folio of 1647, Section 2," SB. XX (1967), 37. Another point of view on this whole question of delay is that of A. K. McIlwraith: "It seems that printers . . . were sometimes willing to interrupt their work for quite a slight cause. This in turn suggests that time was not at a premium, and casts some doubt on any argument which rests on the assumption that speed was economically important." See "Marginalia on Press-corrections," Library, 5th ser. (1950), p. 244.
"Purposes of Descriptive Bibliography," p. 18 n. Elsewhere Professor Bowers brings together in a single sentence many of the considerations raised here: "On the evidence of spelling, only one compositor set (*) B-D, but with about half a normal edition-sheet, he could not have kept up with the press and therefore would not have imposed with two skeleton-formes." — "The Variant Sheets in John Banks's Cyrus the Great, 1696," SB, IV (1951-2), 179.
"Setting by Formes in Quarto Printing," SB, XI (1958), 49. The compositor was unlikely to have been "concerned" at the imbalance, since the reason for it (edition size) was none of his making. It is also salutary to observe that the words 'his press,' as in Professor Turner's article cited in note 38, show the unconscious hardening of assumption into self-evident truth.
Ibid., p. 28. In "Elizabethan Proofing," Joseph Quincy Adams Memorial Studies (1948), pp. 571-86, Professor Bowers added "I feel that this was the major delay which was circumvented and that a certain reduction possible in the time for press-correction was only a minor consideration." (p. 574).
"Notes on Running-Titles," p. 331. In a later note, Professor Bowers states that "running-titles will almost inevitably reveal simultaneous setting and printing of different portions of a book" — Principles of Bibliographical Description (1949), p. 125.
"The First Edition of Your Five Gallants and of Michaelmas Term," Library, 5th ser. (1953), pp. 23, 28. Professor Price believes that Michaelmas Term was printed partly by Purfoote and partly by Allde: "In [its] printing, one skeleton was used for gatherings A and B, two for C-I, one press doing the inner, the other the outer, formes; but for gatherings H and I, the presses twice interchanged the formes" (p. 29).
"Underprinting in The Spanish Wives," p. 254. Each press is said to have printed and perfected its sheet with the one skeleton forme.
"The Textual Relation of Q2 to Q1 Hamlet (I)," SB, VIII (1956), 46. See also "The Printing of Hamlet Q2," SB, VII (1955), 42.
Cantrell and Williams, "Roberts' Compositors in Titus Andronicus Q2" SB, VIII (1956), 28. They add: "The book was printed throughout with one skeleton-forme, and so necessarily on one press . . .".
"The Authorship and Bibliography of The Revenger's Tragedy," Library, 5th ser. (1960), p. 273. Quite apart from the question of skeleton formes, the inference from paper might be queried. It is just as simple to assume that that the heaps were told out by the warehouseman (or boy) from alternate bundles as required for each successive signature. Otherwise it must be assumed that each press knew in advance precisely what proportion of the edition it would print and had on hand all the white paper it would need to complete that work.
Cantrell and Williams, "The Printing of the Second Quarto of Romeo and Juliet (1599)," SB, IX (1957), 107, 113-4.
Cantrell and Williams, "Roberts' Compositors in Titus Andronicus," p. 28: "The problem of Titus Q2 is further complicated by the fact that in the reprint X and Y did not combine to set their material in a normal pattern for two-compositor work in which each man serves a different press. In fact, the peculiar feature of Titus is that there should be a second compositor at all. The running-title pattern indicates no such second workman" (my italics).
"The Text of Heywood's The Fair Maid of the West," Library, 5th ser. (1967), p. 302. In "The Printing of A King and No King Q1," SB, XVIII (1965), 258, Professor Turner had assumed that a single skeleton printing sheets A-F implied one compositor, and that a second skeleton introduced at G implied another, and quicker, one — although apart from signings there were otherwise "no means to distinguish the work of the two compositors" (n. 12). See also Hinman, Printing and Proof-Reading II, 522 n.l.
In some cases two skeletons, regardless of edition size or speed of composition, may be evidence not of increased speed of production, but of a slower than normal rate of production, simply because it can be a very convenient way of keeping type safely standing whether before or after printing (either to allow of proofing in the sheet, or to defer distribution). Stower, Printer's Grammar, p. 474; "Forms will sometimes remain a considerable length of time before they are put to press."
We might stand to gain clarity if, when discussing changes in the pattern of skeletons, we were to abandon the term "interruption" with its assumptions about timing and its implications of delay. Normally what we are observing is simply a discontinuity.
Printing and Proof-Reading I, 46. See also I, 124 where the same point is made and Professor Hinman cites Moxon: "It is also Customary in some Printing Houses that if the Compositer or Press-man make either the other stand still through the neglect of their contracted Task, that then he who neglected, shall pay him that stands still as much as if he had Wrought." Professor Hinman seems to imply that if a forme were machined in appreciably less time than one could be set the press would stand idle and the compositors would have to reimburse the pressmen. But this can hardly have been so. It was the master's job to worry about these things; Moxon is only concerned with 'neglect' of a 'contracted Task.'
Although I am not really concerned to query Professor Hinman's estimate of the edition size of the Folio, it is possible to offer more precise estimates on costs than either Greg or Willoughby has given. Such a note in itself may be of interest, but my purpose is larger: to show how costing methods current in 1700 can be applied to the 1620's. It so happens that Cantrell Legge the Cambridge printer has left a very detailed "direction to value most Bookes by the charge of the Printer & Stationer. as paper was sould Anno Dni: 1622" (Cambridge University Archives Mss. 33.2.95 and 33.6.8). The Folio contains about 227 sheets. At the highest of Legge's 1622 prices, for paper and printing of the best quality, it would have cost 13s.4d. per ream. For average quality the cost would probably have been nearer, in all, to 10s. or 11s. per ream. At the first of these prices, an edition of 500 copies would have cost £151.6s.8d. to produce; for an edition of 1000 copies the cost would have been £302.13s.4d.; for 1250 copies it would have been £378.6s.8d. Legge indicates that the Stationers' mark-up was usually twice as much again as the prime costs for paper and printing ("So they gaine clearly for euery 12s. laid out 1-5-0 The like proportion you may make of all other english, & forraine bookes"). However many were printed, the unit cost per copy of the Folio, accounting paper and printing at the highest price (13s.4d. per ream printed), would be 6s.od. A normal markup would therefore give a selling price of 18s. (not far off Steevens' £1.os.od.). The maximum possible return therefore to the four partners would be £300 for 500 copies selling at 18s. each; £600 for 1000 copies; and £750 for 1250 copies. These figures are crude, but they are not so wrong as to be irrelevant. If 500 copies were printed, given a two-year printing period, the investment would yield roughly 100% per annum, if 1000 copies were printed it would have been 200% per annum. But since a good proportion of the prime costs would not have had to be met until printing was well advanced, nor the balance paid until after printing had finished, a substantial part of the "investment" monies could have been met from the income from sales. Even the lowest of these returns (on an edition of 500) would have justified the venture. It may also be noted that the amount regularly allowed to retailers was 3s. in the £. ("Notes on Printing at Cambridge," p. 103). It is possible to refine the figures further. Legge priced the best paper at 5s.6d. per ream; printing would therefore have cost 7s.10d. per ream. Gay's contract with Purslowe allowed 8s. per week for 3000 impressions per day; this meant, for a full press, 16s. per week for 18,000 impressions (or 18 reams perfected); this gives a price of roughly 10½d. per ream. Presswork on the Folio might therefore be set at 11d. per ream. Now, applying methods customary in 1700, allowing for correction at one-sixth the rate for composition, and adding the "printer's thirds" for over-heads, the detailed costs of printing may be outlined as follows:
| Presswork | 11d. |
| Composition | 3s. 8d. |
| Correction | 8d. |
| ------- | |
| 5s. 3d. | |
| Add for overheads | 2s. 7d. |
| ------- | |
| Cost of printing per ream | 7s.10d. |
| Add cost of paper | 5s. 6d. |
| ------- | |
| Total price for paper and | |
| printing per ream | 13s. 4d. |
Printing and Proof-Reading II, 438. Two skeletons were used in quires F-X, a-b. See also I, 125-6: "One of the most striking facts about the Folio is that only one set of rules appears throughout most of the book; and the continuous use of the same rules can be satisfactorily accounted for only if presswork could keep continuously abreast of composition without difficulty. [A footnote adds: "Otherwise two sets of rules — two 'skeletons' — would almost certainly have been used."] Evidence from rules alone therefore establishes the very strong likelihood that the Folio press regularly worked off one forme as fast as the immediately succeeding forme was set."
Ibid., I, 123. At this point Professor Hinman also writes: "Each successive forme [in 'o'] had been printed off and was ready for distribution by the time compositorial work for the next forme but one was undertaken." The distribution pattern shows that this was so, but I fail to see its relevance to speed of presswork; it simply means that setting did not go forward until the last forme but one was distributed. Professor Hinman mentions the possibility that composition was quite regularly interrupted on the completion of each new forme "to allow the press to catch up" but rejects the idea with the words "of such a practice there is neither evidence nor any shadow of likelihood" (my italics). The same sequence may be followed at variable speeds.
Ibid., I, 75. At I, 153 we find: "Whether one or two skeletons were used in such a book probably depended upon the composition-presswork relationship." See also I, 28 n.l, 49, 364; II, 490-1, 524.
Ibid., I, 123. See also I, 49: ". . . one compositor (and hence, it may be added, two or more compositors setting alternately; for this would amount to much the same thing) . . .". One should add that even without prejudice to the main thesis of balanced work on the Folio alone, Professor Hinman's masterly account of the work done on the Folio concurrently with other books makes it quite clear that a 'norm' of concurrent printing, as shown for the 1700's or 1730's, also applied to the 1620's.
Ibid., I, 74 n.2. The demonstration referred to is, I think, that given at I, 123-4; see note 63 above.
"Setting by Formes in Quarto Printing," p. 42. The second quarto referred to is The First Part of The Contention (1594).
"The Printing of Philaster," p. 22. See also "Printing Methods in A Midsummer Night's Dream" where Professor Turner argues that if type from B(o) is found in both formes of sheet C, and type from B(i) is found only in part of C(i), and if type from C(o) is found in both formes of D, and type from C(i) is found only in D(i), then, "when type reappears in this manner, composition cannot have been seriatim" (p. 36). The following remarks make it clear that Professor Turner means cannot have been seriatim "without press delays." The fundamental argument is not bibliographical in the sense that Professor Hinman's is.
"The Printing of A King and No King," p. 258. See also, in "Printing Methods in A Midsummer Night's Dream," Professor Turner's suggestion that "It seems likely that the compositor, working on the assumption that composition and press-work could stay more or less in balance, originally intended to follow the conventional procedure for setting by formes — to compose two formes, distribute the first, set the third, distribute the second, [set the fourth] and so on." (p. 46).
"Shakespeare's Texts — Then, Now and Tomorrow," SS, XVIII (1965), 31. It is also pointed out there that, before Richard II, "no first quarto has hitherto yielded such entirely conclusive evidence of setting by formes as the Folio does throughout" (p. 28).
See Turner, "Printing Methods in A Midsummer Night's Dream," p. 39: "By itself the testimony of shortage is, I believe, less reliable than any other bibliographical technique."
Printer's Grammar, index. See also Moxon, Mechanick Exercises, p. 239: "Counting or Casting off Copy . . . is to examine and find how much either of Printed Copy will Come-in into any intended number of Sheets of a different Body or Measure from the Copy; or how much Written Copy will make an intended number of Sheets of any assigned Body and Measure."
Another theory that one should like to have some external evidence for is that which closely associates a compositor with a particular set of type cases. Professor Hinman offers a very fine discussion of the question and has much contributory evidence for identifying compositors from type-groupings where distinctive spellings are lacking. See also Turner, "Reappearing Types," pp. 200-3. I have not examined Cambridge or Bowyer books for evidence of this kind.
So Richardson, advising Oxford to do "as the London Printers do, reckon at the rate of 2d in the shilling for the Press Correctors, of what is paid the Compositors." — quoted by I. G. Philip, Blackstone and the Reform of the Oxford University Press (1957), p. 40.
All the statement means is that some evidence of correction has survived; it leaves quite open the possibility that invariant formes already embody corrections, and that even where formes are variant the 'uncorrected' states may be intermediate ones.
Instances of an 'uncorrected' state surviving in a single copy point to the dangers we run if we too readily equate invariant formes with uncorrected ones. The 'uncorrected' states, being earlier, are likely to be fewer and in most cases may have disappeared completely. In "A Proof-sheet in An Humorous Day's Mirth (1599) printed by Valentine Sims," Library, 5th ser (1966), pp. 155-7, A. Yamada notes that "out of fifteen copies examined, the Bute copy alone retains the uncorrected readings on the outer forme of G, and all the other copies have the forme in the corrected state." (p. 155). Of twenty copies of Tailor's The Hogge hath lost his Pearle (1614), only one has inner and outer E in their 'uncorrected' states.
Stower said that it should be "an invariable rule" to demand a second revise, "particularly with foul compositors, as no sort of dependence can be placed on them" (Printer's Grammar, p. 382).
A useful reference list is given in Tanselle, "Press Figures in America," p. 126 notes 10 and 11.
Cambridge University Press, I, 125, but see also I, 131 n.1, and Tanselle, "Press Figures in America," p. 127 n.13.
Greg, A Companion to Arber (1967), p. 26. I shall normally cite Greg's calendar instead of the originals.
Greg, Companion, pp. 52-3. This point is made time and again. Wood's petition of 1621 makes it clear that even of those with presses some were rich and some were poor: "the rich men of the Company by the power of their ordinances, dispose of all things in priuilege to their owne perticular benefits for the most part, and the poore Masters, and Iourney-men Printers haue little, and some of them no worke at all from the Company . . ." (Greg, Companion, p. 170). Lownes, Purfoote, Jaggard and Beale — "those foure rich Printers" — are most complained against for the privileges they hold and the punitive actions they can take against offendors, empowered as they are both by ordinance and their high position in the Company.
Jackson, p. 169. The search uncovered a press operated by George Woods; it was dismantled. Woods of course had no right to a press at all.
Plomer, A Short History of English Printing, 1476-1900 (1915), pp. 185-8; Howe (p. 33) gives the figure as 35.
Ibid., pp. 132-3. Professor Todd states that "By the end of the eighteenth century the personnel of the trade numbered no less than 2815" ("Observations on . . . Press Figures," p. 179). But this figure relates to 1818, not to the previous century, and its user implies that the number of master printers had virtually doubled in the previous 10 years — see Howe, p. 132.
"The Distribution of Almanacks in the Second Half of the Seventeenth Century," SB, XI (1958), 107-16.
The articles of 1635 (Greg, Companion, pp. 94-5) were still being ignored in 1637 (Ibid., p. 102). The trouble was partly that their enforcement was left to the men whose interests they were least calculated to advance. So one finds the journeymen continuing to complain that the orders of 1586-7 and those of 1635 had not been fulfilled and pleading that they be recorded in some court of justice so that they could be sued upon before a competent judge (Ibid., p. 326). The complaints come to a head again in 1645.
Collected Papers, pp. 76-77, 222-3, 240. The arguments from expediency given in The Times Literary Supplement during August-September 1966 seem to me to be beside the point.
| | |