BOOK OF THE FAYTTES OF ARMES
To its description of this edition (No. 6648), the Gesamtkatalog der
Wiegendrucke adds the note: "Das Doppelblatt 140 u. 143 ist neu gesetzt worden."
This appears to be the first notification that sheet S2.5 is known in two different
settings, a fact that (apparently) escaped the attention of the editor of this work for
the Early English Text Society's edition.[11] Of the twenty-one copies of this book known to me, only
four have the variant sheet specified by the Gesamtkatalog—Göttingen, Bibliothèque Nationale, Bodleian (S.
Selden d 13) and the Grenville Kane copy now at Princeton University Library.[12] Thirteen copies have the
text as printed in the Early English Text Society series, while three copies want (among
others) the pertinent leaves—Windsor, Bodleian (Auct. QQ supra l. 25) and the York
Minster copy now in the collection of Phyllis Goodhart Gordan and Howard L. Goodhart of
New York. Seymour de Ricci informs us that the Sion College copy lacks S5, but I have
been unsuccessful in my attempts to obtain information as to the state of S2 in this
copy.
Although the Gesamtkatalog simply assumes without further proof
that the Göttingen state is that which was "neu gesetzt," there is plenty of
evidence to prove that this is certainly the case.[13]
In this instance, positive proof is supplied by the different systems
of punctuation employed by the two compositors. As will be seen from a perusal of the
modern reprint, the enormously preponderant punctuation mark used in the
Fayttes is the virgule (/). For example, on signatures S1, S3, and
S4 (six pages common to all copies), there are 164 punctuation marks of which 163 are
virgules, the remaining one being a semi-colon. In the first setting as represented by
the copy in The Pierpont Morgan Library (PML 781), there are 118 instances of
punctuation on S2 and S5; of these 117 are virgules and the remaining one is a
semi-colon.
For the other setting, the Kane-Princeton copy shows (on sheet S2.5) 105 cases of
punctuation, of which 96 are periods, 6 are semi-colons and only 3 are virgules.
Obviously the text of this sheet was set by a different compositor—one following
his own rules of punctuation—than the one who had composed all the rest of the
volume. Thus it is quite certain that sheet S2.5 of the Morgan copy belongs to the
original setting and that the Princeton one is the reprinted sheet.
Again we may enquire what a comparison of the two states reveals and again we will note
that the reprint shows a deterioration of text. The state of the Morgan copy has six
misprints, while the total in the Princeton setting amounts to some seventeen such
errors; two misprints are common to both states.[14] Characteristic of the better text of the first is the
reading "Consules of Mountpellyer" (S2, l. 4) where the reprint specifies "Consules
Mountpollyer." Conversely, however, the second setting has the more correct last lines
in the colophon which read: ". . . he may || atteyne to euerlastyng lyf in
heuen. whiche god graunte to || hym and to alle his lyege peple. AMEN.
|| Per Caxton ||". The first contained the misprints
"euerlastpng" and "gaunte." However, since the far greater number of misprints is found
in the form as represented by the Princeton copy, we must consider this second setting
as the more inferior text.
A most singular peculiarity of the Princeton volume requires special mention. The blank
last leaf (S6 recto) in this copy shows a distinct off-set of the text of S5 verso, a
condition often encountered among Caxton imprints. But the startling fact here is that
the Princeton leaf shows an off-set of the original setting, not
of the resetting which now faces it in the volume. There seem to be only two logical
explanations for this phenomenon, either that the copy was "made up," perhaps when it
was rebound by Bedford,[15] or
that the off-setting took place in Caxton's workshop. If the latter assumption be the
correct one, we would have certain evidence that the copies of the Fayttes were not bound up as soon as printed but that the sheets were stored
unbound.[16] Thus it would
have to be argued that the Princeton sheet S1.6 came into contact soon after printing
(possibly by being gathered with it) with a sheet of the earlier setting of S2.5, but
that, in the long run, it was not bound up with this particular sheet.
Turning to the other alternative, it seems highly improbable that the blank leaf was
added to this copy,[17] since
no one would ever have considered it necessary to supply such a leaf in order to create
a "perfect and complete" example. Again one cannot assume that only leaf S5 was
supplied, since S2 is its proper conjugate; therefore, if anything was added to the
Princeton volume, it must have been the whole sheet (S2.5). Furthermore, if the blank be
the original one, as we have good reason to believe, it seems unlikely that the
important printed leaf just ahead of the useless blank could have been missing from this
copy at any time; surely, if S5 was lost, S6 would have disappeared too. One must
believe, then, that if the volume is not in the same condition as it was when sold by
Caxton (at least, as far as the identity of leaves is concerned), one must assume that
the Princeton book was so "made up" that S1.6 was supplied from one copy and S2.5 from
another. This seems to be so highly improbable a hypothesis that
the
first explanation for the presence of the off-set in the Princeton
Fayttes appears the more acceptable.
In conclusion, a word should (I think) be said on the subject of the origin of these
two variant settings. In the case of the Pilgrimage, of course,
the sheet was reprinted in order to correct an error of imposition;[18] a similar technical
error[19] occurs in the very
first book credited to Caxton's press—the Recuyell of the
Histories of Troy, [Bruges, circa 1475]. The cause for the
reprint of sheet S2.5 in the Fayttes is less obvious. It
illustrates, however, a phenomenon previously noticed in several volumes printed by
England's prototypographer. Since the second setting contains more misprints than the
first, it was probably not called into being through a desire to improve the text. True
enough, two glaring errors in the colophon were corrected by the second setting, but
this improvement could have been achieved by simple stop-press corrections and certainly
would not have required the resetting of four entire pages.[20] It seems likely that the reprinting was
necessitated either because something happened in Caxton's workshop which required the
resetting of sheet S2.5, or that Caxton failed to print the correct number of sheets to
complete the copies in hand and was thus obliged to make good the deficiency after the
original formes had been distributed.
One must, then, assume that the reprinting of sheet S2.5 was the result either of an
accident in the printing office or of a short count when the sheet was being machined.
If an accident necessitated the reprint, it is scarcely probable that this took place
during the printing of the sheet since it would be an incredible coincidence for both
inner and outer formes to "pie" at approximately the same stage in the course of
production.[21] If sheet
S2.5 was not reprinted because a short count made this necessary, one must believe that
some accident took place at the press after the full number of
sheets had been printed and the formes distributed, for the loss of a sufficient number
of sheets would have compelled Caxton to reset the text and supply the necessary number
in a new setting. While this would be a perfectly reasonable explanation for the
reprinting of sheet S2.5 in the Fayttes, one can only with
difficulty credit a theory which assumes that Caxton permitted such accidents to happen
again and again. There are reprinted sheets of precisely this sort in the Dictes and Sayings of the Philosophers (Duff 123), the Morte d'Arthur (Duff 283), the House of Fame
(Duff 86), and probably elsewhere, for aught I know.[22] Surely these could not all be the results of physical
accidents. On the other hand, contemporary accounts prove beyond question that short
printing was a common enough occurrence to be a source of annoyance and trouble to both
printers and publishers. Neither of these explanations for the presence of the variant
setting in the Book of the Fayttes of Armes and of Chyvalrye is
completely convincing, but if there be a more satisfactory one, it is not apparent to
me.
