IV
The reconstruction of the production schedule demonstrates that the
printing of A Hundreth extended through at least eight months
with long delays between Bynneman's three sections (B-X,
2T-Cc,
2Dd-Ii, A) as distinguished by the transformations in
Bynneman-Y1 and
the times required for printing the intervening books. In general, delays
raise an obvious question about the temporal relationship between the
delivery of printer's copy and the printing of the sections of a book.
Although presswork ultimately defined the rate of production, the delivery
of copy was an overriding factor since printing could only proceed with
copy in hand. Hence, no problem occurred if all copy was delivered at the
commencement of printing or if parts of copy arrived before copy was
exhausted. A delay in printing thus may indicate belated delivery of copy
in segments. A second factor must also be recognised. Even if completed
segments of printer's copy for A Hundreth were in hand
from the start, the assortment of vain ephemera represented by the texts of
A Hundreth could easily have been set aside, if occasion
demanded, to make way for high-priority theological, political, historical,
and learned texts such as were printed during the eight-month period.
Three temporal components related to printer's copy must be defined
in the context of the sharing situation: (1) when the division of copy
occurred in the primary printer's production schedule; (2) whether the
shared sections were printed serially or concurrently; and (3), whether the
resort to sharing points to a preplanned time-saving strategy. The
transformation evidence absolutely eliminates the possibility that
Bynneman's three sections were printed concurrently. However, since
concurrent shared printing obviously requires that completed copy be
in-hand for casting-off, division, and transportation, the printing location
of Middleton's section 2A-S is the critical issue in the
overall
relationship between printer's copy and the evolution of Gascoigne's
sequence of texts. If Bynneman actually divided copy after sheet B,
producing nearly equal sections of nineteen and eighteen sheets and the
distinct possibility of concurrent printing from completed printer's copy of
the
two plays, "F.J.", and "The Devises", these texts had to have been
composed, revised, and fair-copied by early February, and nearly so by the
fictitious date "xx January 1572[/73]." Since typographical and watermark
evidence for dating Middleton's section is lacking, it is necessary to
generate
a circumstantial case by interpreting relevant bibliographical evidence in the
context of the sharing situation represented by the production of Groups
I-III. In general, a section in a shared book must be analysed (1) as a unit
of production in itself, and (2) as a sub-unit of the shared book as a whole
in an attempt to identify the probable factors which led to the sharing
strategy.
Several considerations eliminate any likelihood that Middleton's
section 2A-S was printed during Group I along with
STC11635a. First,
the absence of internal bibliographical and textual anomalies reveals that
Bynneman's first section, containing the texts of Supposes
and
Iocasta, was treated as a single production unit printed from
manuscript fair copies. Both texts were in a final, stable state since no
significant revisions or modifications (except for a very few changes in
words) are found in the second edition. Furthermore, the extant manuscript
copy of Iocasta agrees almost exactly with the text found in
A Hundreth and pre-dates the printing of the book.[25] Gascoigne inserted the date "1566"
and
the identification "of Grayes Inn Esquire" into the titles of the texts in
The Posies, details which correspond to known facts about
this
period of his life. Second, the interruption of printing at F-G (and possibly
E-F) bears no relationship either to internal textual divisions or to a
probable sharing situation. Moreover, the transition between the two texts
at K1v-K2 is perfectly normal: printer's copy presented no difficulty to the
compositor. Third, running-title analysis reveals that the single-skeleton
method of imposition was employed throughout Bynneman's sections of the
book. Given his three presses, Bynneman's choice of this slowest method
of production is definite evidence that he saw no need for haste in printing
the twenty-sheet unit either before or after the interruption at F-G. In short,
the printing of B-X proceeded normally despite the interruption. Hence it
is impossible to argue for the sharing of A Hundreth
2A-S
during the printing of B-X.
In contrast, Bynneman's employment of the sharing strategy is very
plausible in terms of the production circumstances of Group III. The
sharing strategy was primarily motivated by the delivery of copy rather than
the usual time-related factors. First, the division of copy into Middleton's
section 2A-S and Bynneman's section
2T-Cc indicates serial rather
than concurrent printing of the sections. The conclusion of the "F.J."
narrative in 2M3 presented a perfectly logical textual
boundary for the
division of copy into nearly equal segments for concurrent shared printing:
the maximum time-saving would result from sections of twelve and thirteen
sheets (2A-M, N-Cc). Hence, the sharing was not based
upon a
preplanned, time-saving strategy since the actual division produced sections
of eighteen and seven sheets. Second, the possibility that the sharing was
intended to offset lost production time can also be rejected. At least two
months passed between the printing of
STC11635a and the transformation into Bynneman-Y1c. The sharing of
2A-S could in no way compensate for this amount of time.
Nor is it
reasonable to assume that Bynneman would tolerate a two-month delay
before
deciding to share a book in order to avoid a further delay of about eighteen
days if he actually had copy in hand all the while. Furthermore, it is
unlikely that Middleton was unable to take on the shared section during this
two-month period given the output from his shop in 1573. Similarly,
Bynneman printed only seven sheets (
2T-Cc) before once
again
interrupting the job for as much as two more months. Since only seven
sheets remained to complete the text (
2Dd-Ii, A), it stands
to reason
that, having already resorted to sharing, Bynneman would have passed the
remaining copy to Middleton if he had it in hand. Third, the virtual
certainty that the printing of
An Answer Q3 STC25429 took
precedence over
A Hundreth corresponds to the time-related
pressure of the classic sharing situation.
In short, the evidence indicates clearly that Middleton's section was
printed during Group III along with STC11635b. The delays in printing
resulted from the staggered delivery of printer's copy in segments in late
January and mid-May. Taken alone, this fact very strongly implies that the
composition of "F.J." and "The devises" occupied Gascoigne during most
of the intervening period since the preparation of printer's copy required a
week or two at the most. The probability that composition delayed the
delivery of copy and printing is further suggested by evidence that these
two texts were delivered in separate manuscript segments. In general,
setting from such copy could cause compositorial confusion about the
appropriate setting style and thus produce anomalies at the junction of
contiguous sections of copy. The potential significance of graphic layout
and typographical conventions as evidence of compositorial interpretation
of copy has not received much attention although
bibliographers are familiar with these matters. The setting anomalies at the
junction of manuscripts containing "F.J." and "The devises" are identifiable
in the context of the shop practice of employing (1) a hierarchical titling
convention to graphically indicate the relationships among sub-texts in a
book, and (2) a particular setting format to mark the end of such a textual
unit.
Graphic conventions vary according to format.[26] In quarto settings, the main titles
of
independent texts such as Supposes, Iocasta, and A
Hundreth are set in 7mm roman capitals and/or lower-case, with
additional lines of title text set in smaller sizes of type in descending order,
ending usually with the pica roman in the imprint. Preliminaries (e.g., "The
Printer to the Reader"), components (e.g., "The Prologue or
argument", "Epilogue") and sections of the text are
headed by sub-titles in either roman or italic (compositorial preference)
double-pica (5mm capitals). The running-titles are usually set in double-pica
but sometimes in pica; however, the same size of type is used consistently
in the running-titles throughout a book.
Two significant titling anomalies occur in A Hundreth
2A-Ii which indicate
junctions of segments of manuscript copy. According to "The Contents,"
A Hundreth contains four textual sections linked together by
G.
T.'s editorial frame, which presented a titling difficulty: once the text began
with the double-pica sub-title "A discourse of the aduentures |
passed
by Master F. I." in
2A1, the continuous flow of G.
T.'s editorial
commentary between sections eliminated the opportunity to insert
double-pica sub-titles for the remaining sections: "The devises of sundry
Gentlemen," "certayne excellent devises of Master Gascoyne," and "Dan
Bartholmew." Therefore the shift in textual sections could only be indicated
by a shift to the appropriate new running-title. This occurred except for
"devises of Master Gascoyne" and "The Reporter" (see later discussion).
As a basis of comparison for the following analysis, the normal setting
format for transitions between sections of the text in a continuous
manuscript linked by G. T.'s editorial frame can be seen
in Ee2v ("devises of Master Gascoyne" to "Dan Bartholmew").
G. T.'s link between "F.J." and "The devises" unequivocally implies
continuous copy with a transition directly to the Ariosto translation: "I will
begin with this translation as followeth." However, the compositor's
end-of-text setting of this link is extremely improbable for continuous
unbroken manuscript copy which included "The devises" as well as "F.J."
The link is about evenly divided between 2M2v-3
(292-293) and if set
at full measure, the carry-over text would occupy a third of the page. After
the first ten lines on M3, the compositor narrowed the measure with each
successive line and centered the lines so that the text converged in a "V"
to a final line 20mm in width (see Prouty's setting); the
"G.T."
signature occurs at mid-page. He then vertically centered a rectangular
setting of printer's flowers measuring approximately 26mm x 52mm
between the "G.T." and the signature and catchword. In
terms
of standard practice for prose texts in Middleton's shop
(and Bynneman's as well), this setting format is reserved for the end of an
independent text or a sub-text with no textual relationship to the subsequent
text.[27]
It is unlikely that the compositor was responsible for the insertion of
the flowers at this point. Such layout details probably were marked in copy
by the printer. In one rare manuscript, the printer Richard Field marked the
copy of Sir John Harrington's Orlando Furioso to instruct the
compositor to
insert an ornament at the transition between sub-texts but failed to mark a
page-break. The compositor's treatment of the transition is illuminating in
the present context. Harrington's instruction reads: "I would have [yow?]
immedyately in the next page after the fynyshinge of this last booke, with
some prety knotte. to set down the tytle, and a peece of the Allegory as
followeth in this next page." In other words, Field should graphically
indicate the end of "this last booke" by leaving the rest of the page blank
(as he had been instructed and had complied at an earlier textual division),
beginning the "Allegory" on the next page with an ornament over the
sub-title, followed by text for the remainder of the new page. It seems clear
that setting from the continuous copy influenced the compositor to duplicate
with a continuous setting of "this laste booke," the "prety knotte.", the
sub-title, and text on the same page.
[28] Similarly, Middleton's
compositor duplicated his physical copy by using the end-of-text format and
shifting to a new page. His misinterpretation of the transition clearly points
to setting from a new manuscript headed not by a sectional sub-title, but by
the title of the first poem. Rather than adopting one of the three formats
used thereafter in setting titles of poems, he set the first poem title as a
section sub-title.
[29] The first line of
"
A translation of | Ariosto allegorized" appears in
double-pica
italic on the running-title line of
2M3v (the second line in
pica italic)
along with page number "294" in double-pica roman. The choice of
double-pica italic was dictated by the practice which distinguished a sub-title
from a running-title: for example, the sub-title "
Epilogue" is
italicised in X4 but appears in roman as the running-title in X4v. Further,
the running-title appropriately shifts to "sundrie Gentlemen." in facing recto
2M4 with the
new first element "The deuises of" in verso
2M4v.
(Interestingly
enough, "
A translation of | sundrie Gentlemen." would
probably make sufficient sense to a compositor's or corrector's eye to let
pass.) He then began the poem with a small 10mm 'W' used frequently by
Middleton to head sub-sections of texts. It is essential to recognise that the
compositor had both manuscripts in hand and set seriatim at this point.
Having solved the transition problem, he then set an entirely unique
double-pica italic signature "
M.iii" and catchword
"
swash-A" from the case which supplied the sub-title at the
top
of
2M3v. This is the only possible explanation since the
case had not
been used since the beginning of "F.J." in
2A1.
In short, the transitional link's implication of continuous manuscript
copy is simply unacceptable in view of the end-of-text setting anomaly and
the triply anomalous treatment of the beginning of "The deuises" (the
double-pica sub-title itself, the use of the title of the poem as the sub-title,
and the insertion of the ornamented initial). Overall, it seems likely that
Middleton was given the two manuscripts without any explanation of their
textual relationship. He and the compositor were left to their own ingenuity
in resolving the puzzle presented at the junction of the manuscripts.
Bynneman's compositor responded similarly at the junction between
the manuscripts containing "Dan Bartholmew" and the correction notice for
insertion of the misplaced editorial link. Two setting features at the end of
this text in Hh4v clearly imply an end of the "Dan" manuscript: a
rectangular tail-piece (9mm x 43mm) fills the empty space (lines 26-35) and
no catchword appears. The absence of a catchword for Ii1 indicates that Hh
was printed before the final manuscript arrived: otherwise the catchword
would have been included as a matter of course. The considerable amount
of space remaining in Hh4v could easily have accommodated the correction
notice set in pica roman (as it should have been) and several lines of the
first stanza of the misplaced editorial link. That Bynneman expected more
material is clear from the absence of an end-of-book imprint. Moreover, the
manuscript sheet headed by the correction notice was interpreted by the
compositor as a new text and not as a
sub-section of "Dan Bartholmew". First, the running-title changes to "The
Reporter.", corresponding to the entry "Last of all the reporter." (without
page reference) in "The contents". Had the compositor (or corrector)
checked against the printed sheet where the correction notice locates the
misplaced editorial link, the correct running-title "Dan Bartholmew | of
Bathe." would have been used. Second, the correction notice itself rather
than "The Reporter." is set in Ii1r as a sub-title. "This should have
bin placed in the" appears in double-pica italic on the running-title
line (with page "441"), followed by a line in 96mm roman and then a line
in pica roman. The actual sub-title of the misplaced narrative link ("The
Reporter.") is set normally in the Guyot pica roman and probably was the
source of the running title in Ii1v, Ii2v-3. "The reporters conclusion
unfinished." likewise is set in double-pica italic on the running-title
line of Ii2 and the correct catchword
appears in Ii1v, indicating that copy was in-hand. (The absence of a page
reference in "The contents" is perhaps attributable to the fact that no page
number appears alongside the "conclusion unfinished.":
whoever supplied page references probably searched for a doublepica
sub-title corresponding to that in "The contents", so the page number 441
in Ii1 alongside the correction notice was irrelevant.) The setting of the two
headings strongly suggests separate manuscript sheets rather than a single
(probably) bifolium containing both texts. The final link is set in 96mm
roman (a concluding flourish) in the "V" format, followed by the
"FINIS" and the end-of-book imprint.
Given the fact that two compositors in different shops mis-interpreted
the beginning of separate manuscript segments in the same manner, it seems
likely that Gascoigne's style of heading a new manuscript or new sheet was
the common source of compositorial confusion. A variety of factors
suggests possible manuscript divisions at four other points.
(1) The delay in printing evidenced by the shift from Bynneman-Y1c
in Cc4v to Y1d in Dd1r implies segmented copy although no unquestionable
setting anomalies occur. The text in Cc4v ends with the first line of the
third stanza of poem No. 72; copy for the remainder of Nos. 72-73 that
was carried to Dd1r was in hand so that the correct catchword ("If") could
be set. However, the transformation evidence categorically excludes the
possibility that the letterpress for Dd1r was set and left standing at the time
Cc was printed. A minor anomaly occurs. The compositor set the final
"poem" (a single line, not given a number by Prouty) following No. 73,
"Quoniam etiam humiliatos; am[oe]na | delectant", in 96mm roman type.
The turn-under was unnecessary and "delectant" is atypically off-centered
to the left. The significance of this setting must remain a matter of opinion.
The standard practice of setting foreign language quotations in emphasis
type called for a shift from black letter, and
given the pica roman links before and after the "poem," the only logical
option was pica italic. If, however, the Latin quotation ended a manuscript,
a compositor might be tempted to shift to the larger font size (as in the
concluding editorial link). Further, it seems likely that the Latin verse
marks the end of this compositor's stint. The titles for Nos. 72-73 are set
in Bynneman-Y1d while the title of "Gascoignes voyage into
Hollande" initiates the use of the Guyot 76mm pica in
A
Hundreth; it is used in the rest of the book for emphasis, poem
titles,
and editorial links except for a Y1d stint at Ff2v-Hh2v. Overall, the
botched setting and the shift in poem title fonts suggest that the first
compositor finished the copy carried over from Cc4v, but a second
compositor was given the new manuscript and set to Ff2v.
(2) The absence of anomalies at the transition to "Dan Bartholmew"
(Ee2v:8) suggests continuous copy extending from "Gascoynes voyage"
(Dd1) to the end of "Dan" in Hh4v. The 76mm Guyot transitional narrative
link in Ee2v is set normally with diminishing line lengths, and the
running-title correctly shifts to "Dan Bartholmew | of Bathe.".
(3) Several factors raise suspicions of a manuscript junction at
2S-T but the evidence is ambiguous. First, the editorial
source of the
text and location for new running-titles is unclear. "The contents" indicates
that a new subtext "certayne deuises of master Gascoyne" begins in S4v
(repeat alphabet assumed) but the running-title is unchanged, the only such
anomaly in the book. The transitional link begins "I will now deliuer vnto
you so many more of Master Gascoignes Poems," an obvious source of a
new recto element for T1. However, Middleton's compositor set the
transitional link and the first twelve lines of "Gascoigns Anatomie" before
Bynneman's compositor continued setting on T1. The oversight seems more
probable if two separate manuscripts passed at different times between
Bynneman and Middleton. Conversely, it seems more likely that Smith or
Bynneman would have indicated the new recto element if copy was
continuous, provided that the "so
many more of" in the link was not confusing. Second, the movement of
running titles into sheet S reveals that the moderate irregularity obtaining
in M-R degenerated into chaos. It is clear that outer-S was the last forme
to be imposed, and somewhat later than would be expected. However, the
need to adapt or construct a skeleton to accommodate the very long lines
in the texts of S1v-2,4v is as plausible an explanation for the apparent
slow-down in presswork as the late delivery of copy for "the deuises of
Master Gascoyne." Finally, the fact that Bynneman recalled copy at this
point may be a mere coincidence. All things considered, the evidence leans
toward inferring that the slow-down in imposing sheet S after the quite
regular machining of A-M and the general regularity of M-R indicates the
compositor's recognition that he was approaching the end of in-hand copy
which would have lacked material for about half of the final page
S4v.
[30]
(4) Finally, a major textual omission occurs in 2Y3
(373). The
sub-title of "Gascoignes De profundis" (No. 65) appears at
the
bottom of 2Y2v (not anomalous, see
2O2v, P2v, R1v) along with
the catchword for the editorial link in 2Y3 instead of the
psalm: the
sonnet which introduces the psalm follows the link. The link begins "The
occasion of the vvrighting hereof . . ." in the editor's standard reflexive
mode of commenting upon the previous composition. Compositorial
omission can be ruled out: the setting sequence of prose editorial link, poem
title, then another prose editorial link is an inherent contradiction to a
compositor who has been interpreting copy for shifts from 67mm roman in
the links to pica roman poem titles to black letter poem texts. Moreover,
2Y2v-3 would have been set seriatim regardless of the
overall method
of setting. The setting format for the links is normal as well. In short, the
only reasonable conclusion is that the psalm was not
in the manuscript copy and, moreover, the omission is not attributable to
a manuscript junction. Prouty's collational data ("Critical Notes," pp.
277-290) reveal a dramatic rise at this point in errors later corrected in
The Posies that clearly points to a deterioration in the quality
of printer's copy. According to the chronological sequence of the poems
detected by Prouty, a chronological division occurs here: Nos. 66-67 can
be assigned to early 1572 prior to Gascoigne's first departure to Holland in
May 1572. It seems likely that the omission and subsequent errors are
attributable to Gascoigne's attempt to compose the links and to revise the
recent poems during the faircopying process.
In summary, the bibliographical evidence reveals that copy was
delivered to Bynneman in at least six separate manuscript segments: (1)
Supposes (B3-K1v), (2) Iocasta (K2-X4v), (3)
"The
adventures of Master F.I." (2A-M3), (4) "The devises"
(2M3v-Dd1r) (5) "Gascoignes voyage" and "Dan
Bartholmew"
(
2Dd1-Hh4v), (6) and the misplaced narrative link
(
2Ii1-1v); two
additional sub-divisions are possible: (7) the "devises of Master Gascoyne"
(
2S4v-Cc4v), and (8) "
The reporters conclusion
unfinished"
(
2Ii2-3). The fact that the manuscript junctions, as
indicated by the
bibliographical evidence, correspond exactly to textual divisions cannot be
attributed to mere coincidence. When placed in the context of the long
delays between sections and the minimum production time of eight months,
the segmentation of printer's copy clearly indicates that the composition of
the editorial frame and the "F.J." narrative, and the organization of
previously written materials into the editorial frame, occurred during the
January-August period after Smith undertook the publication project. Thus
the date affixed to G. T.'s letter, "this tenth of August, 1572", is a
component of the fiction of surreptitious publication created in the
preliminaries of "The adventures of Master F.I."
and "The Printer to the Reader". It is intended to allow for a credible
passage of time for H. W. to have decided upon publication, produced a
faircopy for the printer, made arrangements with the fictitious publisher
"A.B.", and gotten the project underway by "the xx. of January.1572[/73]".
Six months is far more time than would have been required, so this date
must be explained otherwise. The date is fictional in the sense that
Gascoigne had not yet composed either "F.J." or H. W.'s letter. Hence, it
seems clear that Gascoigne picked this specific date because, as the
reconstruction demonstrates, the project probably began shortly afterwards.
Similarly, the various references to printer's copy as "this written booke"
(50:42), "this written regyster" (220), "the originall copie" (51:7), "the first
coppie hereof" (47:10), and "this recorde" (48:7), as well as the illusion of
a single continuous manuscript sustained in G.T.'s editorial frame, are
purely
fictional.
[31]
