University of Virginia Library

Search this document 


  

expand section 
collapse section 
 1. 
 2. 
I
 3. 
 4. 
 5. 
 6. 
  
expand section 
expand section 
expand section 
expand section 
expand section 
expand section 
expand section 
expand section 
expand section 
expand section 
expand section 
expand section 
expand section 
expand section 
expand section 
expand section 
expand section 
expand section 

expand section 

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.  

19

Page 19
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 H3v, L1, and N1-1v. Some further spellings support these allocations. It is probably safe to assume
illustration

20

Page 20
illustration

21

Page 21
illustration

22

Page 22
illustration

23

Page 23
illustration

24

Page 24
illustration
that H3v 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 1v 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), N1v (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

25

Page 25
of all; with L4v, 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 (L1v) 'noyse' is found twice. Elsewhere in the play, 'noise' is only found on pages set by X (viz. I2v, and O1v), whereas 'noyse' is found only on pages set by Y (viz. G4, K1v 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 (F2v); and of reuendge/reuenge etc., only the Y form is found-on two pages set by X (E2v [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

26

Page 26
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

illustration

27

Page 27
illustration

28

Page 28
illustration

29

Page 29

30

Page 30
illustration
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 C2v, C4, and E2v 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 E2v 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

31

Page 31
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.