In the course of the researches which have been summarized above, it was necessary to carry
out thorough bibliographical analyses on most of the works mentioned. Not all the results
obtained are of equal value, and some have already been stated; but though they will of
necessity make much less of a coherent whole than what has gone before, some of the more
significant data obtained may perhaps be detailed here. It will be thought by some that they
might better have been utilized for a series of scattered notes, but for ease of reference as
well as for their evidential value in the present context it has been thought preferable to
record them here, and to arrange them under the titles of the books examined.
LOVES MISTRESS. This edition was obviously set from the genuine 1640 edition, but the manner
in which is peculiar — though our knowledge of the ways in which compositors worked
together is perhaps too scant to justify the word. The book was set in two different pica
founts which alternate as follows: A3-4v, B1-3v
, B4-C3v, C4-D3:30,
D3:31-F1:15, F1:16-F3v
, F4-G3, G3v-4. G4v was set in long primer in order
to get the text into this sheet, and the same smaller fount was used to print a song in two
columns on F3v-4. In terms of the original edition printed from, the
division of copy becomes hardly any clearer: A3-4v, B1-4v:23 thou, B4v:23 finde-D1v:23, D1v:24-E2:20,
E2:21-G2:18, G2:19-H1v:15, H1v:16-I2v:2, I2v:3-4v
. Neither division corresponds, on the whole, to clear units of the
book or the text, though in the latter part of the work scene divisions do seem to play a
part. If this book was cast off, and set by two compositors simultaneously, the stints would
not be too unequal, but the division of the copy remains curious, especially when it comes in
the middle of a line. The headlines also do
not suggest a clear-cut division
of work. There are eighteen of them, and they come together in formes in an apparently
haphazard manner, but a manner seen in several of the plays under discussion. Though no
solution is here offered, the facts seemed worth calling attention to.
THE MAIDS TRAGEDY. This looks like an entirely regular production, set by two compositors,
and printed on two presses, each using two skeletons. Two founts are in evidence. The mixed
fount prints in sheets E-G and I, another fount, of similar face, prints in A-D and H. Of four
sets of headlines, each larger than text, two print once each in sheets E-G and I, the two
others in sheets A-D and H. No headline wanders into another skeleton, and there is very
little switching about of headlines within the skeleton, during reimposition, although each
page has a complete headline.
THE TWO MERRY MILK-MAIDS. For reasons of typography and watermarks this play and Loves Mistress must have been printed at much the same time. Besides the
links already noticed, the two are set up in the same two founts and in the same manner, and
they use almost exactly the same number of headlines — seventeen in this case. There is
the same free wandering of headlines in reimposition, although the Milk-Maids split the headline over the opening. The division of founts is as follows:
B1-C1, C1v-D1v
, D2-3v, D4-E1v
, E2-3v, E4-I1, I1v-3v, I4-K2, K2v-4, K4v
, i.e. 46 pages in the one fount and 26 in the
other. Both start with 9 and then 4 pages, but no clear pattern emerges.
PHILASTER. Ostensibly a straightforward job, set in a single fount, and with a headline
pattern much like that in The Maids Tragedy. But there are some curious
headline linkages, such as the spelling PHILSATER in one headline when it prints on B4, F4 and
G4, but not when it prints on C1v, D4, E3v, H3v and I1v. One such anomaly might be explained away
as a coincidence, but another headline presents an exclusive B4v-F1
link, while two others agree in linking outer C, D, E and I to the exclusion of B, F, G and
H.
THE PRESBYTERIAN LASH. Possibly the wildest job of all, this play uses 19 headlines for
eight formes, of which three are in larger-than-text type. Three, possibly four founts are in
evidence, B4:8-32 being difficult to assign: A3-B2v, B3-B4:7, B4:8-32, B4:33-C3:20, (C3:21-C3v
in small type), C4-D1v:19, D1v:20-D2:18, D2:19-D3:13, D3:14-D4. The last three changes in
fount occur at scene divisions. There is clear evidence of casting off, A3 and 4v being set very widely, and B2v ending one line
short, though B3 starts with a one-line speech.
THE SCORNFUL LADY, Greg 334g. On the basis that Greg 334f is the genuine 1651 edition it is
possible to work out the textual relationship between the three editions with that date on the
title-page. A complete collation, though showing, as always, some anomalies (none of them at
all
disturbing) due to coincidence, shows very clearly that 334g was set
from 334f for sheets A-D, from 334h for sheets E-H. Though the number of variants is not
large, it is yet too large to print the full collation here, but excerpts should be sufficient
to illustrate the trend of the evidence:
|
|
334f |
334g |
334h |
A4v
|
1. 4 |
posthorse |
posthorse |
posthorse, |
|
7 |
labours |
labours |
labors |
|
11 |
laught at |
laught at |
laught at at (correct) |
B1 |
6 |
kisse |
kisse |
kiss |
|
15 |
with you |
with you |
you with (correct) |
1v
|
1 |
neere |
neer |
never |
E1 |
32 |
Lovelesse
|
Loveless
|
Loveless
|
|
35 |
you, indeed I |
you indeed, I |
you indeed, I shall. |
|
|
shall. Travel, |
shall Travil, |
Travel, (wrong) |
|
41 |
Lady |
Lady |
Ladie |
1v
|
|
faith. Will . . . sir, your |
faith, will . . . Sir? your |
faith. Will . . . sir? your (wrong) |
Since these are excerpts from a complete collation, and since evidence from spelling
is always to be regarded with caution, at least in isolation, not all variants are equally
illuminating, but the two in the earlier excerpt where 334g follows 334f in error against
334h's correction, and the two in the second excerpt where 334h is followed in error, though
334f is correct, are significant. One possibility, of course, must still be eliminated, but it
is easy to show that 334g was printed from 334h (in its latter half) and not the other way
round. Thus 334h is consistent in its proper names throughout (except for erratic lapses) when
it uses a different spelling from 334f, as
Loveless for
Lovelesse,
Abigal for
Abigail, but in A-D 334g agrees with f, in E-H with h. And a particularly illuminating
variant occurs at F2
v l. 9:
Coach: the |
Coach. the |
Coach· the |
To assume that a turned point would be fortuitous at a point where the other text
introduces a variant would be asking rather much of coincidence.
Though the textual situation thus admits of clear exposition, it does not make the
typographical situation easier to understand. Perhaps it will be simplest to set out the data:
Collation: 4°, A-H4. |
A-C watermark: grapes |
running-title: The Scornful Lady. |
type: 20/79 mm. |
measure 102-3 mm. |
D-E watermark: name band |
running-title: The Scornfull Lady.[*]
|
type: 20/80.5 mm. |
measure 99-100 mm. |
F-H watermark: grapes |
running-title: The Scornful Lady.[τ]
|
type: 20/81 mm.[§]
|
measure F, H 98-9 mm, G 99-100 mm. |
The headlines agree with the typographical division but have their own
peculiarities. Sheets A-C have a distinct headline for every page, which makes 19 in all, all
of them in larger-than-text type. It is perhaps simplest to assume that the headlines were set
up with the text, but that does not tell us why. Sheet D occurs with two different sets
[10] of headlines, of which the present
writer has so far only seen one, repeated in E.
THE SCORNFUL LADY. Greg 334h. This book presents several resemblances to some of those
already dealt with, and if it seems possible to work out the printing history here, it should
yet be borne in mind that certain basic assumptions are made, assumptions which we have become
more or less accustomed to make when dealing with seventeenth-century printing, but which the
books so far cited might tend to show are not perhaps so generally valid as we should like to
think.
The collation is the same as for the edition just described (4°, A-H4), the watermark is the same throughout, and so are the printer's measure and the
running-title. Two type-founts are in evidence as follows: A, B1-4,
B4v-D1v, D2, D2v-4v, E, F, G, H: i.e. about two sheets more were printed in one fount than in the other. In the
copy seen (Folger) B4 and 3v were misimposed in one another's
positions.
The imposition scheme, numbering headlines in the order in which they occur in the book and
recording them as they appear in the formes, runs as follows:
|
(o) |
|
(i) |
|
(o) |
|
(i) |
|
(o) |
|
(i) |
A |
-- |
3 |
. |
2 |
1 |
D |
2 |
13 |
. |
7 |
4 |
F |
6 |
4 |
. |
7 |
8 |
|
-- |
-- |
. |
-- |
-- |
|
11 |
6 |
. |
3 |
12 |
|
13 |
11 |
. |
3 |
1 |
B |
7 |
1 |
. |
9 |
8 |
E |
5 |
14 |
. |
8 |
6 |
G |
10 |
8 |
. |
9 |
10 |
|
2 |
4 |
. |
5 |
6 |
|
9 |
10 |
. |
10 |
9 |
|
5 |
9 |
. |
12 |
14 |
C |
13 |
10 |
. |
13 |
3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
H |
8 |
5 |
. |
7 |
12 |
|
12 |
3 |
. |
10 |
11 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
10 |
9 |
. |
13 |
14 |
The presence of 14 headlines argues for more than one press, and the presence of two
type founts argues for two compositors, which, in its turn, argues for two presses as the
eighth edition of a play (and a piracy at that) would hardly be printed in a small impression
needing two compositors to keep up with one press.
Since one of the headlines used in A (2) does not occur after D (o), we may assume that A
was printed first, not last. As compositor 1 (making the assumption of 2 compositors from the
two founts) set two sheets more than compositor 2 (though A was of course a small job) and was
able to help compositor 2 over B by setting B4v (compositor 2
subsequently reciprocating by setting D2 — there is no indication that setting was by
formes), we may think that A was finished well before B, so that press-work
began well before B. Assuming that a logical sequence was followed, we should then conclude
that the two formes of A were machined concurrently, since the A(o) headline next occurs in a
forme machined on press 1 (i.e. the press for which compositor 1 is assumed to have worked)
and the two A (i) headlines in a forme machined by press 2.
This would mean that the formes of B were machined concurrently with those of C, those of D
with E, those of F with G, and, ideally, the two formes of H again machined together. In fact
we find that the headlines on C, both inner and outer, exclude the possibility that its formes
were machined concurrently with any others than those of B or A(i). Further, though no such
general exclusions exist for the other formes, we find that the formes of D and E are mutually
exclusive in their headlines, and those for F and G equally so except that F(i) and G(o)
cannot have been at press together, as both use headline 8. But the two formes of H are again
mutually exclusive, and H(o) is in fact imposed with the last skeleton worked on press (2)
although it had been set by compositor 1.
The printing can then be reconstructed as follows: G(o) and H(o) are from the same skeleton,
so G(o) would have immediately preceded H(o). G(o) shares half its skeleton with G(i) and
three-fourths with E(i) and E(o), but probability would choose G(i) as the preceding forme.
Since G(i) shares three-fourths of the skeleton with E(o), and E(i) again three-fourths with
B(i), there is some reason to suppose that the order of printing was B, E, G, H(o), inner
forme preceding outer. A(i) would then naturally take its place before B(i), where both its
headlines reappear. We might reverse the order in B, which is immaterial.
If this sequence is taken as established, certain consequences follow. C, as we have seen,
must have been printed concurrently with A(i) and/or B(i,o), so that we might tentatively
place A(o), C(i), C(o) parallel with A(i), B(i), B(o). The order in C is again immaterial, but
we may think that D(i) has (12, 3) together because they were together in C(o), though on
similar grounds (13, 11) we might advocate C(o), C(i), D(o), D(i). But we also note that F(o)
takes over three headlines from D(o), including 6, which also appears in E(i), and that since
F(i) has 8, it would have been printed before G(o) and after E(i), while F(i), having (7, 3),
would have been printed after D(i), and D(i) — (7, 4) —after B(o). The only way of
meeting these conditions is by positing an order D(i), D(o), F(i), F(o), printed concurrently,
forme for forme, with E(i), E(o), G(i), G(o). We are then left with H(i), which may reasonably
be placed after F(o) on press 1, to give each press eight formes and make them finish
together:
|
A(o) |
C(i) |
C(o) |
D(i) |
D(o) |
F(i) |
F(o) |
H(i) |
1 |
-- |
3 |
13 |
3 |
13 |
10 |
7 |
4 |
2 |
13 |
7 |
8 |
6 |
4 |
7 |
12 |
|
-- |
-- |
10 |
11 |
12 |
3 |
3 |
12 |
11 |
6 |
3 |
1 |
13 |
11 |
13 |
14 |
|
2 |
1 |
9 |
8 |
7 |
1 |
8 |
6 |
5 |
14 |
9 |
10 |
10 |
8 |
8 |
5 |
2 |
-- |
-- |
5 |
6 |
2 |
4 |
10 |
9 |
9 |
10 |
12 |
14 |
5 |
9 |
10 |
9 |
|
A(i) |
B(i) |
B(o) |
E(i) |
E(o) |
G(i) |
G(o) |
H(o) |
We may be surprised at the setting up of headline 14 as late as E(o), when
headlines 1, 8 were left on the bench (presumably D(i) had not yet been broken up), but then
12 was set up for C(o) when 11 must have been available (or vice versa if we reverse the
order). A convincing answer to this riddle, which is anything but unique at this time, were a
thing devoutly to be wished — but until we have one for 12 we had better not worry over
14.