 | |  |
I. Titus Andronicus and Romeo and Juliet
Scores, even hundreds, of individual types become distinctive through injury as work on the First Folio goes forward. The precise point at which a given type suffered injury can frequently be observed, and the damaged type then traced in its subsequent appearances through the book. When large numbers of such types are catalogued and studied, very definite patterns of recurrence become apparent, and from these it is possible to determine many things about the printing of the book. One of these things is the exact order in which the various formes that make up the First Folio were set.[5]
Throughout the Comedies and most of the Histories the progression was, on the whole, very regular. Setting usually began with the inner forme for the inner sheet; then came the outer forme for the same sheet, then the inner forme for the middle sheet—and so on. The sequence[6] was thus 3v:4, 3:4v, 2:5v, 2:5v, 1v:6, 1:6v and this order was followed so often, despite occasional deviations from it, that it can clearly be regarded as the normal order of formes within a quire. Normal too is progress from quire A to quire B, then from B to C—and so on, in regular alphabetic sequence. Here again exceptions must be made. Special circumstances sometimes produced irregularity in the order of the successive quires of the Comedies and Histories. Quire X was followed, not by quires Y and Z, but by quires a and b—though these were then followed by Y and Z. Other departures from strict alphabetic order are also found; but this regular order was nevertheless the one normally followed. Never, moreover, was the setting for a new
The change in procedure which produced these irregularities took place somewhat before the Histories had been finished. Quires t-x, containing the end of Richard III and the whole of Henry VIII, were not set immediately after quire s but only much later, after all of Macbeth and part of Hamlet had been printed.[7] Next set, after the completion of quire s in the Histories, were certain formes for quire aa—and work on the Tragedies was under way. But quire aa (containing Coriolanus pages) was still unfinished when one forme of quire dd (two pages of Titus Andronicus) was set. And presently quire kk (part of Julius Caesar) was composed; then another forme of quire dd, then two formes of quire ll (more of Caesar) and another forme of dd (Titus again). Four formes of quire bb (Coriolanus) were immediately followed by certain formes of quire mm (Macbeth) and of quire ee (Titus and Romeo). Later, after nn1:6v (Macbeth and Hamlet) and then ff2:5v (Romeo), came quire t (Richard III and Henry VIII); but other formes for Romeo and for pre-cancellation Troilus were worked before quires t-x (and hence, at last, the Histories) were finished. The final Romeo forme (2gg1v:2) was set between two formes of quire oo, for Hamlet. Quire Gg (Timon of Athens) was begun immediately after rr1:6v (King Lear), but a start was made on quire ss (shared by Lear and Othello) before Timon had been completed.
This is surprising indeed, and at first seems not merely irregular but chaotic. Yet a certain method in this madness begins to emerge as soon as the order in which the successive formes were set is scrutinized in the light of information as to which compositors set them.
The greater part of the First Folio was set by two compositors known as A and B. But Titus Andronicus and Romeo and Juliet are evidently the work of someone else—of the man to be referred to hereafter as Compositor E.[8] The work of A and B can almost always be identified quite positively by means of very simple spelling tests. E's spelling, however, although in some respects more like B's than like A's, is characterized by a wild mixture of many of the alternative spellings (notably do-doe and go-goe) that are most useful in distinguishing A and B. Thus pages set by E usually show an olio of certain spellings that is rarely found in the work of either A or B; and such a mixture occurs throughout Titus and Romeo. In these two plays, therefore, spellings alone may be taken as a sufficient basis for the identification of Compositor E—although, as will soon be seen, there are also other ways of determining what he set, and in later plays he can in fact be distinguished from A or B independently of spelling tests. In any event there can be no doubt that Compositor E set Titus and Romeo—or, in bibliographical terms, part of quire cc and all of quires dd, ee, ff, and 2gg (the last being the two-leaf quire at the end of Romeo that immediately follows quire ff).
In the light of this fact a re-examination of the order of formes in the Tragedies proves highly instructive. The entire sequence cannot be considered here, but a representative part of it will at once make clear the essential nature of the whole. The following sequence, indeed, is thoroughly typical of the progression from the first forme of quire aa to the third forme of quire pp—immediately after which a very significant change, to be described in due course, took place. Beginning, then, with the first forme of quire mm, work on the Tragedies proceeded thus (the upper-case letter above each page-designator showing which compositor set that page):
The formes set by Compositor E have been underscored for the sake of clarity. It will be seen at once that if these formes are omitted the progress is absolutely regular in quires mm-nn and t-v. The six formes of mm were set in what we have already seen to be the normal order within a given quire, and mm was followed by quire nn where precisely the same order of formes is found. At this point—with the composition, that is, of quire nn—further work on the Tragedies by A and B was temporarily suspended while these compositors set the three quires (t-x) that finally brought the Histories to completion. The order of formes within quires t and v (and also x, which followed) is again, however, absolutely normal. And it may be added that when quires t-x had been finished a return was made to quire oo, the next quire in the alphabetic sequence of the Tragedies, where again the normal order of formes within the quire was followed, as it was also in succeeding quires.
Also apparent is the fact that the formes set by Compositor E themselves show normal order. No two of them are immediately consecutive within the larger sequence; but omit the material set by A and B and the progression in what remains is again completely regular, always from inner to outer forme and from inner to middle to outer sheet; and quire ff follows quire ee in the proper alphabetic order. Thus what we seem to find is a very regular progression of formes within two independent but mixed sequences. The appearance is in some respects misleading, as will be seen; but regularity—method of some sort—is patent.
It should also be noticed that the first three formes of quire mm were set mostly by Compositor A, Compositor B having no part whatever in mm3:4v; and that B alone, on the other hand, set the first four formes of quire nn and also one forme (v2v:5) of quire v. Although A and B together set most of the 24 formes of quires mm-nn and t-v, each compositor is sometimes found setting one or more formes by himself. This, too, is typical of the whole Coriolanus-Hamlet progression; and it is important in showing that each of the two regular Folio compositors was fairly often required somewhere else than at work on Shakespeare.[9]
This point is emphasized in order to show that the setting done by the third compositor of the Tragedies was not done independently of the work done by A and B and simultaneously with it. The third compositor never worked from a third type-case; and the same skeleton that is used for what is set by A and B is always used with E's formes as well.[11] Both A-B formes and E formes therefore quite certainly belong in a single sequence, are integral parts of one operation—in which, however, a forme set by E is always a kind of substitute for an A-B forme and is never set except in the absence of at least one of the regular compositors. Thus Compositor E set only what may properly be called the intercalary formes of the sequence; and the otherwise orderly progression of the regular formes is larded with intercalary material set by a substitute compositor when one or both of the regular compositors had to be elsewhere.
In this is the essential puzzle. All would be understandable enough if only it could be shown that Compositor E set certain plays while A and B worked independently on others. Thus we should indeed have quite separate sequences of formes, each following a normal order and each produced pari passu with the other in a two-part operation obviously designed to hasten the composition of the book. Yet, as we have seen, it is perfectly certain that we do not have two really separate sequences. And why should Compositor E, although acting only as a substitute for A or B or both of them, always work on different pages altogether, always set other quires than those being set by the regular compositors? There is, I believe, only one explanation that accounts both for the irregular order of formes described above and for certain other phenomena found later in the book: Compositor E was incapable of setting manuscript material acceptably. It was indeed desired, not so much to speed up work on the Tragedies as to avoid at least some of the delay caused by the absences of one or both of the regular compositors who were so often required temporarily elsewhere. Compositor E kept work on the Shakespeare folio going forward. His activities, however, were necessarily confined to printed copy; and hence formes for Titus and Romeo (set from printed quartos) are
Some of the most striking evidence upon which this suggestion is based is encountered only after the point in quire pp at which the alternation between regular and intercalary formes ceases, another method of working is adopted, and E is found in an important new role. This will be described in due course, and the whole of the evidence as to E's chief limitation can then be reviewed. First, however, certain facts about E's earlier activities should be noticed.
(1) The Folio text of Titus Andronicus contains one scene (III.ii) not found in the quarto. This scene (about 85 lines, falling partly in dd3v and partly in dd4) must have been set from manuscript copy and was undoubtedly set by Compositor E. Once, therefore, E did set from manuscript. Now it cannot be determined, in the absence of the copy itself, precisely how well or ill Compositor E managed to reproduce the manuscript text of Titus III.ii—or, of course, how long it took him. But Professor H. T. Price, now preparing the New Variorum edition of Titus, has assured me that this scene is certainly one of the most corrupt passages in the play. Which, considering the rest of Folio Titus, seems to be saying a good deal.[12]
(2) Whatever E's capabilities with respect to manuscript copy, it is clear that he could not set even printed copy well. This is almost immediately apparent to anyone who will examine Folio Titus and Romeo with half a proof reader's eye. They are full of errors, and of errors not found in the printed quartos from which they were set. The liberties which Compositor B was wont to take with copy may create more serious problems for an editor than some of the more obvious bungling of Compositor E. But B's shortcomings are not due to inexperience or lack of mechanical skill. E's work, on the other hand, usually seems to reflect both. It inevitably suggests, not the swift though careless expert, but the tyro. Hence it is especially interesting to note that E was apparently expected to make a great many errors. In striking contrast with much of the material set by A and B in the Tragedies, practically everything that Compositor E set, not only in Titus and
(3) As we trace the whole progress of the printing of the Tragedies from Coriolanus to Hamlet we observe that Compositor E's activities gradually change. He begins by setting a page (dd3v) from B's cases without any of the immediately prior distribution of wrought-off material that is normally the first step in setting a new page. Then, more regularly, he distributes s1 and sets his second page (dd4). A little later we find that he is usually distributing considerably more material than he sets, and hence that the regular compositor who presently returns to the case at which E has been working finds it already well supplied with type and is able to proceed at once, without preliminary distribution, to the setting of his next page. E is being used for extra distribution—to the advantage of the regular compositors, now one and then the other.[14] Soon after this, moreover, there is a further development. Compositor A set column b of mm4 and then all of mm3:4v (see p. 8). But when he finished setting mm4 from what may be called the x case, he proceeded to set mm3 from the y case, then moved back to the x case to set mm4v. This looks very much as if E were here doing A's distributing for him—so that A could devote his whole time to setting.[15] There is no sudden and striking increase in foul case in the Tragedies: Compositor E could obviously distribute better than he could set. This, too, his superiors appear to have recognized and exploited. In any event it is patent that here, in
| | |