| ||
IV. Analysis of Quires
In what follows I offer as a sample analyses of four quires, B through E, excluding for lack of space much of the data upon which the examination is based.[16] Each quire is examined in turn except Quires C and D which, for reasons that will be obvious, are taken together. Evidence pertaining to presswork and revealing information about the order of printing is first considered, then evidence from types recurrences and spelling, which bears on the way in which type was composed and distributed and the identity of the compositors doing the work. For each quire but B, the first, it has been convenient to summarize the type recurrence data and the spelling evidence on graphs organized like those in previous sections of this study, but with these differences:
(1) Latent types are not taken into account. If we suspect that Folio types during the course of the work were sometimes being used to set non-Folio material and that distributions were made without regard for the case from which the distributed types were last drawn, latent types become especially suspect. By "latent" I mean types not immediately reused after distribution but remaining in the case after the opportunity for reemployment passed only to appear in a later quire. Let us say that a32 was observed in H2vb and K3va and that both H2vb and K3va were set from Case A, the demonstration of this not depending on a32. We may believe that a32 was distributed into Case A with other H2vb types, remained unused through the setting of
(2) The spelling data displayed on each graph are an abstract of what appear to be the most significant forms for the identification of the compositors of the quire rather than a complete summary of all spellings tested.
(3) Evidence of type shortage is not reported, although many substitutions were made throughout the section. These were investigated and found to correlate only feebly with information produced by the type recurrences, substitutions either having been sporadic or the boxes of type in inadequate supply having been fouled with replacement types.
One last matter pertaining to the evidence deserves mention: the effect of proof-correction upon the pattern of type recurrences. As Hinman discovered and as has been found in previous sections of this study, most recognizable types reappear because they have been distributed and reset in routine fashion, but a few do not, having become dissociated from their fellows in some extraordinary manner. These are aberrant types. One way in which a type can become aberrant is through press-correction. Collation of fifteen copies of the Folio has turned up press-variants on two dozen pages of Section 1, some of which were heavily altered in as many as three rounds of correction. None or these variants involves any of the types represented on the graphs, but some may have become aberrant through press-corrections that have not been discovered.
QUIRE B The Mad Lover I.i-II.ii
Presswork
In Skeleton I Rule 14 was replaced by Rule 15, which continues into subsequent quires, an indication that B2v:3 preceded B1v:4.[17]
Composition and Distribution
The following types and rules appear in B2v and B4v:
Skeleton: | I | II | I | II |
Forme: | B2v:3 | B2:3v | B1v:4 | B1:4v |
Center-rule: | 29 28 | 30 36 | 32 28 | -- 29 |
Because B2v type is found only in B4v and B3 type only in B4, it is unlikely that both type pages of the forme were distributed into the same type case, and spelling evidence indicates that two compositors were at work in the quire, Compositor A setting B1-B2v and B4v and Compositor B setting B3-B4. The two runs of pages are distinguished by the following variant spellings:
Case: | A | A | A | A | A |
Compositor A: | B2v | B2 | B1v | B1 | B4v |
Case: | B | B | B | ||
Compositor B: | B3 | B3v | B4 |
QUIRES C AND D The Mad Lover II.ii-V.iv
Presswork
In Skeleton I the foot of the T in RT I is nicked on C1, D4 and subsequently but is whole on C3 and C4; Rule 18 is bent at 5.90 cm. on C4v and subsequently but not so bent on C1v and C2v; Rule 12, which appears on C3 and C4, is replaced by Rule 13 on C1 and D4. These details show C2v:3 and C1v:4 to have been machined before C1:4v and D1v:4. Rule 24 is bent on C1 and C4 but not so bent on C3; Rule 16, which appears on C3, is replaced by Rule 17 on C1 and C4. Thus C2v:3 was machined before C1v:4 and C1:4v. In D1v:4 the The of RT III is reset at D1v and Rule 24 is bent out at 1.30 on D4. D1v:4, then, must have been machined after all the formes of C imposed in Skeleton I; and the evidence, taken together, proves that these formes were worked in the order
Skeleton: | I | I | I | I |
Forme: | C2v:3 | C1v:4 | C1:4v | D1v:4 |
Center-rule: | 28 36 | 33 28 | 28 36 | 32 -- |
In Skeleton II Rule 3 is nicked at 7.80 throughout D but not so nicked on C2, and Rule 4 is bent left on D1 but not so bent on C2. C2:3v was thus first printed. Rules 7 (nicked at 14.85), 8 (nicked at 15.40), and 9 (bent right at the top) all appear damaged on D3v but not on D2v, showing that D2v:3 preceded D2:3v. The appearance on D2 and D3 of Rule 5 (which may be the imprint of the foot of another rule) suggests, though it does not prove, that D2:3v was run directly after D2v:3. The order of printing of these formes was either
Skeleton: | II | II | II | II |
Forme: | C2:3v | D2v:3 | D2:3v | D1:4v |
Center-rule: | 32 29 | 29 32 | 33 29 | 28 -- |
Skeleton: | II | II | II | II |
Forme: | C2:3v | D1:4v | D2v:3 | D2:3v |
Center-rule: | 32 29 | 28 -- | 29 32 | 33 29 |
Composition and Distribution
As shown by the graphs, types reappearing in Quires C and D fall into two quite distinct clusters. One embraces all Quire C but C2 and is linked by B3 type (C graph, lines 1 and 2) with the typecase from which Compositor B set his pages of Quire B. The other embraces C2 and Quire D (where D4 is a part-page and D4v a blank) and is linked by B2v types (D graph, line 1) with Compositor A's previous work. That all the aberrant types discovered in Quire C (that is, types that should be found in material set from Case A rather than Case B) are C's suggests the borrowing of some
The two clusters of reappearing types accord well with the two spelling patterns which in Quire B served to distinguish Compositor B's work from Compositor A's, making it generally clear that Compositor B set all Quire C but C2 and that Compositor A set C2 and Quire D. The two near(e) spellings in C4a, where five unusual dye spellings also occur, are found in the song, set in italics, on that page; they could possibly indicate another hand but are, I think, more likely to be an uncharacteristic response on Compositor B's part to copy of a different nature from that of the text. The one B1b type appearing on C4a (C graph, line 9) is in the song; if it is correctly identified, the song would at least have been set from Case B.
Although there are a few inevitable obscurities, the Quire C graph allows us to follow Compositor B's work with some precision. If we suppose that B began work on C2v immediately after he completed B4, we can roughly represent the temporal relationship between the activities of the two workmen as follows:
While Compositor A set: | B1 | B4v | C2 |
Compositor B set: | C2v | C3 | C3v. |
While Compositor A set: | B1 | B4v | C2 | |
Compositor B set: | X | C2v | C3 | C3v. |
Skeleton: | I | II | I |
Forme: | C2v:3 | C2:3v | C1v:4 |
Center-rule: | 28 36 | 32 29 | 33 28 |
When other evidence relating to the order of printing was examined earlier, it was concluded that of the formes imposed in Skeleton II either D2v:3 or D1:4v must have followed C2:3v through the press. Because D2v type reappears in Quire D (D graph, lines 13 and 14) but D1:4v type does not[19], we may be sure that the first of the two possible orders is correct and that D2v:3 was the next forme after C2:3v to be machined in Skeleton II. Moreover, the reappearance of D2v type later in Quire D indicates that it was the first forme of the quire to be printed, and the earlier reappearance of its type than type from C1 (lines 15 and 16) shows that D2v:3 preceded C1:4v through the press. Thus the scheme for the order of the printing may be continued as follows:
Skeleton: | I | II | I | II | I | II |
Forme: | C1v:4 | D2v:3 | C1:4v | D2:3v | D1v:4 | D1:4v |
Center-rule: | 33 28 | 29 32 | 28 36 | 33 29 | 32 -- | 28 -- |
QUIRE E The Spanish Curate I.i-II.ii
Presswork
Skeleton I imposed E1v:4 and E2v:3; II imposed E1:4v and E2:3v. E1v, properly page 26, bears the page number 28 which also appears correctly and set in the same type on E2v, the numerals evidently having been carried with the running-title from the latter page to the former. In addition, a bend at 16.05 in Rule 20 is more pronounced on E4 and subsequently than on E3. These details show that E2v:3 was printed before E1v:4. A nick in Rule 28 at 1.20 appearing on E4v but not on E3v indicates that E1:4v followed E2:3v. E3, page 29, is misnumbered 27, but because the types are different from those appearing on E2, the true page 27, this fact has no significance for the order of printing.
Composition and Distribution
Within Quire E some types are found on both E1v and E2 (line 11) and since E2:3v was printed early and E1v:4 late, the following order is implied:
Skeleton: | II | I | II | I |
Forme: | E2:3v | E2v:3 | E1:4v | E1v:4 |
Center-rule: | 35 29 | 36 33 | -- 31 | 34 32 |
Both graphs indicate that E1-3v were set from Case A by Compositor A and that E4-4v were the work of a new man, Compositor C, who in this quire is most readily distinguished from his fellow by a preference for
If we take it that E2:3v was first composed and machined, it would follow that since D1:4v was imposed in Skeleton II some time would have elapsed between its printing and the imposition of E2:3v in the same skeleton. During this interval D3, C4v, and D2:3v could have been distributed, so that our first graph shows types from these sources reappearing in a way that suggests no very pronounced relationship with the sequence in which the pages were printed, except that D3va would have been last distributed (lines 1 and 2). The intermingling of these types might have occurred if they were used in intermediate work, but three other anomalies remain difficult to account for: the apparent distribution of C4v after D3v (lines 3 and 4), the very early reappearance of aberrant types from D1v and D1 (lines 13 and 17), and the absence from E1 of all previously recognized types but one (line 4).
The assumption that E2v:3 was first composed and machined has different consequences. In this event the order of printing would have been
Skeleton: | I | II | II | I |
Forme: | E2v:3 | E2:3v | E1:4v | E1v:4 |
Center-rule: | 36 33 | 35 29 | -- 31 | 34 32 |
| ||