COPIES of John Banks's play Cyrus the
Great (1696), the first edition, exist with
sheets B, C, and D in two completely different
typesettings but without change in text. In the setting
which I shall identify as (*), the second line of the
opening stage-direction on sig. B1 ends with the word "Battel" and B2 is not signed. On
C3v the reading in line 3 is
"express'd" and in line 29 "bred"; on D1 the catchword is
"Adorn'd" and on D4 the catchword is "Thy". In the other
setting, identified as (§), the direction on B1 ends
"Battel where-" and B2 is
signed; the readings on C3v are
"Express'd" and "bread"; on D1 the catchword is,
correctly, "Let" and on D4, incorrectly, "They".
The central problem, since it is a matter of prime textual
importance, is to determine the order of setting and
printing these variant sheets: because one is a straight
reprint of the other, only that setting made directly from
the manuscript can have authority. Ordinarily, in an
examination of this sort, one seeks to determine priority
by analytical bibliography, which, if one is fortunate,
may decide the issue on the laws of mechanical evidence
without calling on the less demonstrable inferences of
textual criticism based on the variant readings.[1] In Cyrus the
Great the bibliographical evidence, in its
salient features, conforms so strongly to a certain
well-established pattern of printing that an assumption
can be made about priority on this evidence alone.
However, the case is not an open and shut one, for there
remain some difficulties, and at least two alternative
hypotheses can be
evolved to fit the
facts. As a consequence, it will be more appropriate to
survey the textual evidence first to see whether its
findings will coincide with what seems to be the preferred
bibliographical explanation.
Textual evidence is of two varieties. The first is concerned
with the relative "goodness" or "badness" of the readings
in an attempt to demonstrate that one version of a text is
more correct than another. The second, with less concern
for correctness, tries to determine whether one set of
variants would evolve more naturally from the other than
in the reverse direction. Taking only the substantive
variants between these three sheets, we see that of the
total of nine, a more correct reading is found six times
in (*) against three times in (§). When these are
viewed more narrowly, however, it is apparent that there
is a real difference between the kinds of faults
corrected. Thus (§) properly corrects the simple
misprint of "Doys" to "Days" (B1v,
l. 38), "no" to "not" (B4v, l. 31),
and "thy" to "the" (C1v, l. 12); but
when serious variants occur, such as the dropping in
(§) of "to" in "to Cyrus" (B2,
l. 15), and the omission of "Was" in "Was Hystaspes" (B4v, l. 29), it is (*) which is always the
correct text, in addition to such variants as the correct
"adorn" (B1, l. 44) in (*) against the "adore" of (§)
or the correct "all my" against "my all" (D2v, l. 29). In the matter of
substantive readings there is little question that
(§) is a comparatively degenerate text, and this
deterioration (an almost invariable accompaniment of
reprints) is customarily taken by textual critics as proof
of later typesetting.
The degree of correctness in the accidentals of a text is less
good evidence, for in reprints one may often find
substantive degeneration accompanied by somewhat superior
punctuation, usually in a fuller system. For the record,
however, it may be stated that of the fourteen clear cases
where there can be no question of superiority in the
punctuation by Restoration standards, (*) is the more
correct eleven times, and (§) only three. Of five
cases of elision for metrical reasons against non-elision,
(*) is correct in all.
This evidence for the priority of (*) conforms to our general
experience with texts, but it comes far short of actual
demonstration, since the argument is always plausible that
the earlier setting was particularly careless and has been
corrected in the later. And, in fact, so far as one can
determine from the readings, there is only one (§)
variant—the omission of "Was" in "Was Hystaspes" (B4v, l. 29) —which would be really
difficult for a compositor to mend if (*) were, instead,
the later setting.
Other evidence may be adduced, however. For example, on D2v the catchword in (*) is "Have"
but in (§) it is correctly "Cyr." for the first words on D3 which are
"Cyr. Have. . . ." The
setting of a catchword omitting a speech-heading is a not
uncommon characteristic of dramatic texts set from
manuscript but I have not observed it in reprints, in
which a compositor may check on the correctness of a
catchword but seldom alters it in favor of an incorrect
one. Somewhat similar is the incorrect catchword "Adorn'd"
on D1 of (*), which is right for the first word of the second
line on D1
v but is
properly changed to "Let", the first word of the
first line, in (§). Again,
this is an error found in texts set from manuscript, in
which it may probably be assigned to wrong marking of the
stopping point, or to a skip of the eye, but it is not
characteristic of reprints.
[2]
Finally, certain inferences may be drawn from the variant
spellings in the two settings of the sheets, but this can
be applied only in connection with the interpretation of
the bibliographical evidence, and will thus appear
later.
When we move to the bibliographical evidence for the printing
of this book, the following facts appear. Cyrus is a quarto, collating
A-H4 I2, the preliminaries occupying sheet A and the text
beginning with a head-title on B1. The text concludes on
I1, followed by an epilogue on I1v
and I2, and advertisements on I2v.
Although there is no break in the text, clear differences
occur in the printing of sheets B-E (including both
settings of B-D) and of sheets F-I. Most prominent is the
fact that though the font of type remains the same, and
the vertical measurements of the type-page are almost
identical, the printer's measure (i.
e., the length of the printer's composing
stick as evidenced by the measurement of a full line of
type) switches from 119 mm. in B-E (including both
settings of B-D) to 123 mm. in F-I. Also, sheet A is set
to this 123 mm. measure. To complete the evidence that
different skeleton-formes were used for the two sections,
this alteration in the typographical layout is accompanied
by different settings of the running-titles in each
part.
Sheet E, then, is the only sheet which was not reset in the
first section composed with the 119 mm. stick, and this
fact becomes of considerable importance. In the (*)
setting of B-D, each sheet was printed with two
skeleton-formes, one for the inner and a different one for
the outer forme; on the evidence of the running-titles,
these two skeleton-formes were also employed to impose the
type-pages of the respective formes of sheet E, thus
establishing a firm link between the printing of invariant
sheet E and the (*) sheets of B-D. In setting (§), on
the contrary, a completely different group of
running-titles is found, not elsewhere repeated in the
book. This group is found in only one skeleton-forme,
however, which was used to impose both the inner and outer
formes of B-D. The running-titles of F-H are in different
settings, and of a different font, from any in either
setting of B-D and of course from E. The group used in the
skeleton for inner F also printed outer G, and that for
outer F appears again in inner H. Inner G and outer H were
each printed from skeleton formes differing from each
other as well as from those in the
rest of the book. The single running-title in half-sheet
I, that on I1, does not seem to be found elsewhere either.
The same typesetting of the words "Cyrus the Great" found
in the head-title on sig. B1 of setting (*) —but
differing in (§) —appears as the first line of
type on the title-page on A1. Finally, of the eighteen
copies of this book I have examined to date, six contain
the (*) B-D sheets, and twelve the (§) setting.
If we were acquainted with this book only in the (*) state,
there would be little hesitation in interpreting the
evidence as indicating a book in which the manuscript was
halved and the two parts B-E and F-I plus A were
simultaneously set and printed on two presses. This was a
common way of printing Restoration plays, the division of
pages is nearly equal, and point by point the facts
correspond to the pattern for such printing established in
other books.[3] The evidence of this
printing is in all essentials so strong that it must, I
think, be taken as the basis for any plausible hypothesis
about the book. If we accept it, at least for the moment,
then under any normal conditions the use of the same
skeleton-formes in sheet E in the same positions as in (*)
B-D would indicate seriatim printing and thus that the (*)
setting is the original one.
This was the tentative conclusion of the textual evidence, and
it may be strengthened by the spelling, which demonstrates
that the compositor of (*) B-D also set sheet E. The
strongest single piece of evidence to this effect is the
spelling "Battels" which occurs three times in (*) B-D and
once in l. 8 of E2v. Interestingly,
we find that the (§) compositor followed the
"Battels" form in its first appearance in the
stage-direction on B1, but in the other occurrences spells
it "Battles." He would not, therefore, seem to be the
compositor of E2v. Correspondingly,
we find that the single occurrence of the word "sence" in
l.3 of D2v is matched in spelling by
"Sence" in line 23 of E3v although
the (§) compositor changed the D2v spelling to "sense." There is probably a
parallel here to the spelling in l.12 of B1 in (*) as
"ascent" but in (§) as "assent." In B1, B2 (twice),
and C4v we find the (*) spelling
"o'er" which also appears on E2, E3, E3v, E4, and E4v. In the
four occurrences noted in B and C, the (§) compositor
changed the spelling to "o're," although he followed
"o'er" under the influence of his copy once on B3v and once on D3. I can make
nothing of the differences in capitalization habits
between the two compositors, but it is worth mention that
such characteristic spellings as disclous'd, Genious, and uncontroull'd from (§) where (*) is
conventional, find no place in sheet E. Against this
cumulatively invariable evidence that E was set by the
compositor of (*) B-D, the one scrap of negative evidence
is the spelling Stroak on E3v matching up with Shoar on (§) B2 as against
Shore in (*).
So far it would seem that the building of the hypothesis has
followed Sir Walter Greg's (and Whitehead's) advice to
"seek simplicity." The book
conforms to
the standard patterns for two-section simultaneous
printing. Under such conditions, the evidence of the
running-titles and of the spelling characteristics
indicates that sheet E not only was set by the compositor
of (*) B-D but also followed these sheets on the press,
and is, therefore, the original and only authoritative
setting. All that remains is to evolve a satisfactory
theory to account for the resetting of B-D. Here the
pertinence of Greg's full quotation, "Seek simplicity, and
then distrust it," becomes apparent, for no thoroughly
satisfactory theory occurs to me. There are two standard
reasons for such resetting: (1) short printing of the
original sheets either as a result of a miscalculation or
of a decision to enlarge the edition after a certain
number of gatherings had already been machined; (2) an
accident happening to the sheets.
There are various reasons for being distrustful of the first.
If we take it that short printing of B-D occurred by a
miscalculation, we are faced with the uncomfortable
situation of imagining that in a book simultaneously
composed and printed on two presses in the same shop,[4] a major misunderstanding about the
size of the edition-sheet could go undetected for several
days although the paper was being brought out from the
warehouse and given to each press and the printed sheets
taken away to be dried. Moreover, the number of preserved
copies does not encourage this theory. It is very odd
indeed that of the eighteen I have seen, the proportion
has been two to one in favor of what seems to be the later
setting. With all allowances for the operations of chance,
it would seem that at a minimum the supplementary printing
would need to have been larger than the original, and this
would have meant a remarkably small edition-sheet for the
miscalculating press.
Finally, we should need to assume that sheet E was machined to
the full number of sheets. If so, then the point at which
the change in estimate was made becomes of crucial
importance, for it is a very curious fact that no standing
type appears in reset sheet D. For example, if the error
was discovered during the printing of the first forme of E
to go on the press, it is not very likely that there would
have been time to distribute the type from both formes of
D.[5] If the decision was not made until
sheet E was perfecting, it must have been very early, for
neither forme of E shows any signs of having been
unlocked. Under these circumstances, the first forme would
not have been broken into but would have been held intact
to perfect the additional white paper printed by what had
been the perfecting forme. This is
possible, of course, but it still assumes a rapid though
not incredibly expeditious distribution of all of sheet D.
Nevertheless, if it occurred, we may legitimately enquire
why the skeletons of E were not used to impose reset B-D,
for we should expect that the additional sheets of B-D
would be printed immediately. On the other hand, if the
error was discovered early in printing the first forme, we
could believe that the initial forme of B could be quickly
set by casting off copy and would be ready for the press
before any skeleton of E could be released. This theory
would explain the new skeleton, but it does not explain
why none of the type of D was left standing if the change
was made so early. However, one forme of B might still be
set if the decision were made early in the perfecting, so
that even the perfecting skeleton might not be available
when reset B was prepared for its press. Still, it is odd
that—on the evidence of the spelling—a new
compositor was assigned for the (§) setting of B-D,
although the original compositor should have been free. In
my opinion the lack of standing type remaining from D, the
construction of a new skeleton-forme for the reset
printing, and the change in compositors all combine to
argue against the immediate printing of reset B-D. It is
true that a delay in this printing, though abnormal, would
not destroy the theory of short printing, but a delay is
better explained by some other hypothesis. To complete the
arguments, one should mention that it is very odd to find
two skeleton-formes employed in setting (*) if the
original edition-sheet was as small as it would need to
have been. On the evidence of the 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.
[6]
The same arguments operate with even added force against a
hypothesis that a decision was made to enlarge the
edition-sheet sometime during the printing of E, for in
such a case there would have been every incentive to
machine reset B-D immediately, and to save as much
standing type from D as possible. In addition, there is
the uncomfortable matter of the proportion of the
preserved copies. But the really crushing argument against
this theory is that it will not conform to the hypothesis
of two-section simultaneous printing, for by the time E
was printed, the workmen assigned to F-I and A must have
finished their job, or been fairly close to the end.[7] On the evidence, a sufficient number
of sheets was printed for all of the second section.
The alternative, an accident to a large number of sheets of
B-D, fits the
case perfectly for a delay
between the printing of sheet E and the reset sheets,
since it allows for D to be distributed as well as the
skeletons of E, and for a different compositor to appear
on the scene. Moreover, there need be nothing odd about
the proportion of copies preserved. The one really
disturbing matter is its vagueness. What kind of an
accident
could affect what seems to
have been an equal number of sheets
[8] in three successive gatherings and
not affect the fourth? Moreover, this accident would need
to have occurred after sheet E was printed, but before all
the sheets were folded and collated for delivery to the
publisher.
[9] No satisfactory explanation occurs
to me save to conjecture that originally only about a
third of the edition, represented by the (*) setting, was
collated for binding in order to satisfy the initial
demand, the remainder being stored packaged by sheets. If,
before these sheets were opened and gathered, an accident
happened to the packages containing B, C and D, they would
need to be reset, and we should find the consistent copies
exemplified by the eighteen examined, with three sheets
either in the (*) or the (§) setting.
It seems necessary, therefore, even at the risk of unduly
extending this examination, to survey as briefly as
possible other theories which might fit the facts to see
if any other is preferable.
If we adhere to the initial hypothesis for two-section
simultaneous printing, then it would seem impossible to
reverse the order of the settings of B-D, even though the
proportion of copies I have seen suits (§) as the
original better than (*). Until sheet E is printed, the
book cannot be bound. If we suppose that the resetting (*)
was not decided on until E was at press, we cannot explain
the construction of new skeleton-formes for E which are
thereupon used in the resetting. Moreover, there is the
fairly clear fact that E was set by the compositor of (*)
and not of (§). Since any tortuous explanation of the
use of the skeleton-formes must necessarily involve the
immediate resetting of B-D, we cannot explain why no
standing type from D was preserved. Finally, we cannot
escape these various objections by supposing that the
decision to enlarge or to overprint was made while D was
on the press. In such a case there would have been an
over-run of at least one forme of D, and preservation of
standing type. Also, if D were on the press, the
compositor would necessarily have already set some of E,
but on the spelling evidence he did not.[10]
It will be clear that the original hypothesis advanced must
hold (whatever the explanation) provided we continue to
accept the interpretation
of the
evidence that the book was simultaneously set and printed
in two sections. It is legitimate to enquire, therefore,
whether a reasonable alternative can be adduced. In fact,
a somewhat plausible set of inferences, of a quite
different cast, can be contrived involving seriatim
typesetting for the whole, at least as the original
plan.
For example, if a decision were made to enlarge the size of
the edition while sheet E was on the press, two-section
printing might have been introduced at this point
consequent upon the necessity to reprint B-D. If this were
so, we should have a situation differing materially from
the first hypothesis. Since the book would not have been
planned from the start as a two-section job, sheets F-I
would not have been printed simultaneously with the first
setting of B-D but, instead, at the same time as the
second setting. In this manner the facts of two-section
printing would be reconciled with the theory of an
enlarged edition, a theory which must be rejected if
two-section printing had been planned from the start.
There is much that is attractive about this hypothesis.
The use of two or more presses in the second section is
explained by the necessity to print four and a half full
sheets while a single press is reprinting three sheets in
smaller quantities. This hypothesis can be maintained,
however, only if we discard the theory that press I (for
the first section) printed (§) B after completing the
last forme of E, for otherwise the compositor would have
used the first wrought-off skeleton from E for his
imposition. If, therefore, (§) B did not follow E,
the alternative is that E (at least as a whole) did not
follow (*) D on the press.[11] The hypothesis,
then, must be altered to place the decision to enlarge the
edition late in the machining of the second forme of D. By
this time the compositor should have set up to E4 and
possibly even E4v. If, thereupon,
before press I had finished machining (*) D, its
compositor began the resetting which resulted in (§)
B, it would have been possible for press I to have printed
the first forme of E in order to keep busy and then to
have swung over to (§) B, leaving the perfecting of E
to press II or III while its compositors were setting F
and G. The timing would apparently be right for such a
schedule, and the construction of a new skeleton for the
B-D resetting would be explained, together with the
absence of compositor I's setting in F. That F-I did not
thereupon employ the skeletonformes of E would doubtless
result from their changed measure which would have
necessitated the cutting of new furniture reglets.
The prime difficulty in accepting this theory is the fact that
no standing type from (*) D was preserved, although it
would have been available, to save time and money in
printing reset (§) D. This is so inexplicable,
indeed, that it should cause us to be more than ordinarily
suspicious, the
more especially since it
explains on largely fortuitous grounds the equal division
of a book between two or more presses, which we are
accustomed to view as the result of the simultaneous
printing of the two sections. Moreover, on the spelling
evidence, the compositor of reset B-D was not the same
workman as that of the original sheets, whereas the theory
almost positively requires him to be one and the same.
Finally, the proportion of the respective settings of B-D
in the preserved copies argues strongly against a
hypothesis based on the enlargement of an edition-sheet.
These are such strong reasons that I do not believe we can
accept this alternative.
If, in a last desperate attempt, we reverse the order of the
B-D settings, we are up against the reasonably clear
textual, spelling, and semi-bibliographical evidence that
(*) was the first; we should need to assume that E (on the
evidence of its (*) running-titles) was not machined until
the last operation although it must have been set earlier;
we are faced with the strong probability that E,
nevertheless, was set by the (*) compositor; and we still
cannot explain the lack of standing type in D.
It would seem that the most prominent alternatives involving
any probability in normal printing practice fail to
satisfy the prime requirements for any satisfactory
hypothesis, which must explain (a)- the proportion of
variant B-D sheets in the observed copies; (b) the lack of
standing type in D; (c) the different skeleton-forme in
reset B-D; (d) the equal division of the book between two
or more presses; (e) the change of compositors between the
two settings of B-D.
The only theory which will fit every one of these facts is the
original one, which introduces the plan for two-section
printing from the beginning, and posits a delay before the
reprinting of the reset B-D sheets. The only difficulty in
full acceptance of this hypothesis is the vagueness of the
explanation, involving some peculiar sort of accident to
three successive sheets. But until a better explanation
occurs to someone, I believe this is the theory we must
hold. Regardless of the explanation for the how and why,
however, it would seem sufficiently clear that the (*)
setting of B-D, the details of which were described at the
start, is the original and only authoritative form of the
text in these sheets.
