Addendum: The Printing of Hamlet Q2, by Fredson Bowers (See Studies in Bibliography, vol. VII)
In "The Printing of Hamlet Q2" (SB, VII, 42) I spoke of the difficulty in identifying all the running-titles because of their typographical similarity, but expressed confidence that my table of assignments, with the possible exception of N1, presented the facts with some accuracy. This confidence, it can now be seen, was excessive, for two other assignments in addition to N1 have proved to
be in error. I am indebted to Dr. J. Gerritsen who first pointed out to me these errors after he had compared the running-titles of the British Museum copies; and I am grateful to Dr. C. J. K. Hinman who confirmed the accuracy of Dr. Gerritsen's variant assignments by checking the running-titles in question on his collating machine at the Folger Shakespeare Library.
On p. 42, therefore, the following changes should be made in the table:
II delete 02-N1(?); VI delete O1
V; VII add N1; XIV add
O1V; XV add 02
This assignment destroys the case for the printing of sheet O+A before sheet N. I am not
altogether happy about the required new explanation, but offer it provisionally.
When press X came to impose outer N (the first through the press), inner I was perfecting on the press and outer I was on the distributing bench. Press Y, despite the help given its compositor by compositor X who had set sigs. L1 and L4V, was slightly behind press X. Press Y was perfecting L inner and, to impose M outer (the first forme through the press), had L outer on the bench.
|
I(o) |
|
|
L(o) |
|
| VII |
|
VI |
XIII |
|
XIV |
| VIII |
|
V |
XIV |
|
XV |
It would seem that compositor X, for reasons not at the moment to be determined, imposed outer
N from the top four quarters of the two skeletons; and that compositor Y took the remaining
bottom four quarters:
|
N(o) |
|
|
M(o) |
|
| XIII |
|
XIV |
XV |
|
VIII |
| VI |
|
VII |
XVI |
|
V |
When inner I came off press X and inner N was to be imposed; and somewhat later when inner L
came off press Y and inner M was to be imposed, the bench would have contained:
|
I(i) |
|
|
L(i) |
|
| II |
|
I |
X |
|
IX |
| III |
|
IV |
X |
|
XII |
It seems necessary to conjecture that running-title II pied in the stripping or the imposition, for
compositor X seems to have taken title XII from L(i) instead of setting a new title. That left
compositor Y one title short for his next imposition, and thus when N(o) came off the press
before he was prepared to impose M(i), he took title VII from N(o):
|
N(i) |
|
|
M(i) |
|
| XII |
|
I |
VII |
|
IX |
| III |
|
IV |
XI |
|
X |
Sheet O+A, which in its outer forme used title V and in its inner forme titles XIV and XV, was
imposed from the remnants of N(o) containing VI, XIII, XIV, and from M(o) containing V, VIII,
XV, XVI.
An approximate schedule for the typesetting and printing on the two presses would then be:
| X: |
B |
|
C |
|
D |
|
F |
|
I |
L1,4V
|
N |
|
O+A |
| Y: |
|
E |
|
G |
|
H |
|
K |
|
L1V-4 |
|
M |
|
Except for the different position of the O+A pages, this is essentially the same as that printed on p. 49 of the original article.
