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 |
Because in previous quires the first forme set and machined was
$2
v:3,
this sequence seems quite odd; moreover, part of the typographical evidence
in Quire E is garbled in such a way as to suggest that the ordinary affinity
between presswork and composition was lacking. Two graphs are shown,
the first constructed on the assumption that for some reason not apparent
E2:3
v was set first and the second constructed on the
assumption that,
as usual, E2
v:3 preceded. Since E2b type appears only on
E1
v,
E1
v:4 is shown in both as the last forme, although the
only obvious
advantage accruing from the prior composition of E1:4
v
would have
been the temporary gain of a little time, for E1 bears a head-title and only
about two-thirds the text found on full pages.
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
I'l(
l) and an aversion to the short forms
do-go which A sometimes admits. That Compositor C was
working at Case B is not demonstrable, although for the reasons given
above (p. 141) it seems likely that he was. The one D1a type on
E4
va
(line 16) probably must be regarded as aberrant and discounted. It is thus
troublesome to find no link between E4
v and E4
established by
D1
v:4 types carrying over into E4 (lines 12-14) because
the possibility
is thereby opened that E4 was set from a third case to which Compositor
C would have moved after the completion of E4
v. This is
not
impossible, but it is simpler to suppose that no D1
v:4
types appear in
E4 because they were thoroughly covered by new types from D1. We
discover next to no evidence for the distribution of D4a (line 15) because
that column contains only two identified types in its sixteen lines of
text.
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 |
Here the discontinuation falls between E2:3
v and
E1:4
v, and at
least one of our earlier anomalies subsides. E1 in fact contains a good many
types which show up later in the section; their initial appearance on E1
suggests that non-Folio matter was distributed into Case A just before that
page was set, an assumption that accords with the presumed interval at that
point. In addition, as the second graph shows, the aberrants from
D1
v
and D1 fall in a more acceptable place, and the distributions of D3 (lines
1 and 3) and D2 (lines 5 and 6) appear in the sequence of their machining.
C4
v (lines 2 and 9) remains rather awkward unless we
suppose that
most of its distribution was delayed until E3
va, but on the
whole the
second graph tells a more orderly and more reasonable story than the first.
What seems to have happened, then, is that Compositor A, having
completed Quire D, continued with E2
v:3 and
E2:3
v. At this point
work was interrupted. Before it resumed, A
distributed some non-Folio material in preference to
E2
v:3,
which was to remain standing until Quire F's composition, and then fell to
work on E1 and E1
v as Compositor C set
E4
v and E4. By the time
E1
v was reached, E2
v:3 and
E2:3
v were equally available for
distribution, and A happened to choose E2b first.