I
Professor Fredson Bowers has already questioned whether Q2
Hamlet was set by one compositor who was rushed in his
work. From a preliminary analysis of skeleton-formes used for
this quarto, he has shown that
Sheets B, C, and D were imposed with a set of two
skeletons for each sheet, this being a pattern customarily
adopted when the compositor was comfortably ahead of the press.
With sheet E two more skeletons were constructed, oddly enough,
and thereafter the first set continues with sheets F and I while
the new set imposes sheets G, H, K, and L. With sheets M, N, and
O there is a curious mixture of the sets. This evidence suggests
that composition speed was ahead of press speed, and there is
even a question as to whether two presses were operating, in
which case there must have been two compositors.
[2]
Later, he was more definite: "This general alternation involving
the use of four skeleton-formes is inexplicable for printing with
one press; yet if we hypothecate two presses it follows that
there must have been more than one compositor."
[3] Fortunately,
the evidence for two compositors suggested by the presswork can
be made specific from the results of a spelling test. The work of
these two men is distinguished by the following spellings:
Compositor X. |
Compositor Y.
|
their |
theyr/their
|
deare, dearely, etc. |
deere, deerely, etc.
|
sweete |
sweet
|
farwell |
farewell
|
sayd(e), etc. |
said(e), etc.
|
houre(s) |
howre(s)
|
madam(e) |
maddam(e)
|
being |
beeing
|
receaue, receaued, perceaue, etc. |
receiue, receiued, perceiue, etc.
|
honor(s), honor'd, dishonor, etc. |
honour(s), honour'd, dishonour, etc.
|
mooue, mooued, prooue, etc. |
moue, moued, proued, etc.
|
sodaine |
suddaine
|
choise |
choice
|
reuendge, reuendgeful, etc.(There are 3 Y forms in Act I)
|
reuenge, reuengeful, etc.
|
In addition, words which in modern English terminate in -
consonant+
ow and -
consonant+
ew and
are pronounced similarly to
know and
knew,
are spelt by Y, almost exclusively, -
ow and -
ew,
whereas X has a large number of -
owe and
-
ewe
forms. The evidence may be tabulated; and from the evidence of
these tables, it appears that the two compositors divided the
work as follows:
Compositor X |
B1-D4v,F1-4v,I1-4v,
L1,L4v,N1-O2 |
Compositor Y |
E1-4v,G1-H4v,K1-4v,L1v-4,M1-4v
|
It is noteworthy that Y started work when the new skeletons were
constructed. The evidence is reasonably clear except for
H3
v, L1, and N1-1
v. Some further
spellings support these allocations. It is probably safe to assume
that H3
v was set by Y because the form 'musique', occurring
twice, is only found elsewhere on E2 and H4 (twice), both Y
pages; 'musickt' is also found on a Y page (G3), but 'musicke' is
restricted to I4 and O2 pages set by X. The allocation of N1 and
1
v is uncertain because 'their' was set by both X and Y,
and
the
houre/
howre distinction is not very clear.
Here
the spelling
leasure helps; it is found on D1 (set by X),
N1
v (twice) and N2, and in Roberts' 1600 quarto of
The
Merchant of Venice which was probably set by the same two
compositors as his
Hamlet, this is characteristic of X, Y
using the form
leysure.
[4] The allocation of L1 is the most
difficult
of all; with L4
v, it is an exception to the division of the
work by sheets,
[5] and
deare is the only word on it which
is usually significant.
[6] But there is
further support for the X
allocation in 'noise' which occurs twice on this page, whereas on
the one immediately following (L1
v) 'noyse' is found
twice.
Elsewhere in the play, 'noise' is only found on pages set by X
(
viz. I2
v, and O1
v),
whereas 'noyse' is found
only on pages set by Y (
viz. G4, K1
v and M1).
Noise/
noyse strengthens the case sufficiently
to
justify assigning L1 to X on the basis of the available
evidence.
The evidence of the spellings for Hamlet becomes more
impressive when similar tests are applied to The Merchant of
Venice quarto of 1600 Here again, there is evidence of more
than one set of skeletons. The verso running-title 'The
comicall Historie of' is sometimes approximately 4.4 cms. in
length and sometimes approximately 4.6 or 4.7. The two lengths
alternate regularly:
short running-title
|
A2v:-B4v,D1v-4v,F1v-4v,
H1v-4v,and K1v.
|
long running-tide
|
C1v-4v,E1v-4
v,G1v-4v,and
I1v-4v.
|
This alternation is reflected in the spelling tests, which show
that the following forms are again significant:
Compositor X. |
Compositor Y.
|
their |
theyr/their
|
deare |
deere
|
farwell |
farewell
|
sayd(e), etc. |
said(e), etc.
|
houre(s) |
howre(s)
|
madam(e) |
maddam(e)
|
being |
beeing
|
sodainly |
suddainely
|
This is a shorter list than for
Hamlet: the
mooue/
moue distinction, by no means constant in
Hamlet, does not hold for
The Merchant; the Y form
of
receaue/
receiue etc. is not found; the X form of
honor/
honour etc. occurs only twice, once on a page
set by Y (F2
v); and of
reuendge/
reuenge etc.,
only the Y form is found-on two pages set by X (E2
v [twice]
and E3). While X again used
choice
, Y used the form
choyse. The -
owe,-
ewe / -
ow,-
ew distinction is irregular: it works almost perfectly for
the often recurring word
Jew but for other words, the Y
forms predominate, -
owe
or -
ewe being found only 7 times on pages set by X, and 5
times on pages set by Y. Similarly, the Y form
sweet
is
often found but X's
sweete four times only, thrice on
pages set by X and once on a page set by Y.
In addition to the spellings significant in Hamlet, X
set leasure(s) where Y set leysure(s). The form
Ile is found throughout, but on pages set by X
ile
is often found. This last peculiarity is probably due to a
shortage of capitals which is a noticeable feature of the quarto,
verse lines frequently beginning with lower case letters.[7] The evidence is as follows:
For The Merchant of Venice there is further evidence:
(1) Compositor X normally set the whole of the entry directions
in italic type, while Y used italic only for proper names,
setting the rest in Roman, and (2) Compositor
Y occasionally indented single lines, or parts of lines. These
peculiarities reinforce the spelling tests:
X-italic type only |
C1,1v,3v,
4,4v,E1&
v,2,3v,G1v,
2,3,4v, and I1,1v,2,3,3v.
|
Y-Roman type except for proper names
|
A2,2v,4v,B2,2v,4&
v,D1, 1v2,2v,3v,4v
,F2v,4,4v,and H1.
|
On C2
v, C4, and E2
v there are entry
directions with
proper names in Roman and the rest in italic type.
Y-indented lines |
A2,4v,B2,3v,4,D1,1v
,4,E2v, and F4,4v.
|
The indentation of the last line on E2
v is the only detail
of this bibliographical evidence which breaks a regular
alternation. It seems safe to assume, on the accumulated evidence
of running-titles, spellings, entry
directions, and indentations, that the work was divided between
the two compositors as follows:
Compositor X
|
A1(title-page),C1-4v,E1-4v,G1-4v, and I1-K2.
|
Compositor Y
|
A2-B4v,D1-4v,F1-4v, and H1-4v.
|
A1 seems to be the only page about which there can be any doubt.