 | |  |
The Printing of A King and No King Q1 by Robert K. Turner, Jr.
As an increasing number of Elizabethan play quartos are subjected to bibliographical analysis, it begins to appear that these books were more often than not composed by formes. Recent studies have described the bibliographical characteristics of books set by one or more compositors using this technique, and, more important, it has been shown how detailed information about such printing procedures can directly affect the way in which an editor will deal with the text preserved by the quarto.[1] It is in this context that I will discuss the printing of Beaumont and Fletcher's King and No King Q1, a matter that is of interest because the volume appears to have been set up not by formes but seriatim and because this fact has a bearing on editorial problems, one of which will be considered here.
The copy of A King and No King was entered to Edward Blount on 7 August 1618; Q1 made its appearance in the following year, having been printed by John Beale for Thomas Walkley, the stationer who was about to undertake the publication of Philaster (1620), Thierry and Theodoret (1621), and Othello (1622), all, like A King and No King, plays from the repertory of the King's Men.[2] Walkley's dedication to Sir Henry Neville deserves to be quoted in full for the information it reveals about the copy from which Beale worked:[3]
Worthy Sir,
I present, or rather returne unto your view, that which formerly hath beene received from you, hereby effecting what you did desire: To commend the worke in my unlearned method, were rather to detract from
Thomas Walkley.
The conventionality of Walkley's language according to the dedication formulas is revealed not only by his phraseology but also by his reference to the authors' further labors: when he wrote these words Beaumont had been dead for at least two years. Yet it is clearly implied that Walkley had obtained a text of the play from Neville, and, as no business connection between Blount and Walkley is known, Greg was led to speculate that the entry in the Stationers' Register was made by Blount at the instigation of the King's Men to deny rights of publication to Walkley.[4] Presumably such blocking entries were a device by means of which the company through the agency of a cooperative stationer retained control of or an interest in a property of actual or potential value which was about to be printed, and it looks as though Walkley, who may at first have stolen a march on the actors by obtaining a text from a private person, would have had to reach terms with them, and perhaps also with Blount, before he could have published A King and No King. These circumstances suggest that the text which Neville gave to Walkley was a transcript of some kind, and the uniformity of act headings, speech prefix abbreviations, and other such details of Q1 accords with an assumption that a scribal copy underlay the printed text. As Q1 does not contain stage directions in the technical language of the theater or other indications of relationship with prompt copy but does contain a ghost character (Mandane, who is brought on by the stage direction introducing II.i, but who never speaks or is spoken to), it seems that the scribe probably worked from late-stage foul papers or from the authors' final draft.
One problem which has troubled editors of A King and No King, and indeed of other Beaumont and Fletcher plays, has been the lineation of certain parts of the text. Beaumont and Fletcher often wrote fluid, idiomatic lines which are either metrical prose or irregular verse. The speech of Mardonius which begins III.iii will serve as an example. The quarto prose is reprinted here; the virgules indicate the lineation of R. Warwick Bond, one editor who decided to treat the passage as verse:[5]
The book collates A-L4 M2; leaf A1 is a blank, A2 is the title page, A2v bears the dedication, and A3 carries the head title and the beginning of the play itself. The text, which ends on M2v, is set in ordinary roman, with speech prefixes and stage directions in the usual italic. Thirty-eight lines of type to the page prevail, but on B3, Il, Ilv, and L4v thirty-nine are printed by the expedient of running a few words into the direction line. The pages are correctly numbered. In general, typographical details seem to have been carefully looked after; the appearance of the book is quite clean.
An examination of the running titles (A King and no King. on recto and verso) shows that both formes of Sheets B through F were machined in a single skeleton forme (I), but that at Sheet G a second skeleton (II) was introduced and used to impose the outer formes of Sheets G through L while Skeleton I imposed the inner. Sheet M was printed in Skeleton I by half-sheet imposition. Sheet A, which seems to have been machined late in the course of printing, perhaps last, uses two running titles from Skeleton I in its inner forme and one from Skeleton II in its outer.[7]
If Sheet A was not printed in sequence, the copy which it contains must have been cast off, yet the rest of the book seems to have been set seriatim. Type from distributed formes of A King and No King Q1 normally reappears
| Forme | Distributed between | Forme | Distributed between | Forme | Distributed between |
| B(i) | C2-C2v | E(o) | F4-F4v | I(i) | K2v-K3 |
| B(o) | C4v-D1 | F(i) | G2v-G3 | I(o) | K4v-L1 (?) |
| C(i) | D3-D3v | F(o) | G4v-H1 | K(i) | L1v-L2 |
| C(o) | D4v-E1 | G(i) | H1v-H2 | K(o) | L2v-L3 |
| D(i) | E3-E3v | G(o) | H4v-I1 | L(i) | M1v-M2 |
| D(o) | F1-F1v | H(i) | I2v-I3 | L(o) | no evidence |
| E(i) | F3-F3v | H(o) | I4v-K1 | M | no evidence[10] |
The fact that Sheets B through F were machined in one skeleton forme indicates that they were composed by one workman (Compositor A). He signed three of the four leaves in each gathering. At Sheet G, however, a second skeleton was introduced, and in Sheets H, I, K, L, and A all four leaves are signed.[11] It seems probable, therefore, that a second compositor (B), who apparently set type more quickly than A and thus could use another skeleton, entered at Sheet H, and, as type reappearances and substitutions show that he used the same cases from which earlier sheets had been set, he must have relieved Compositor A and not worked simultaneously with him.[12] The introduction of Skeleton II at Sheet G is probably related to the change of workmen; it may have been constructed by Compositor A after Compositor B began setting. The distribution of wrought-off formes within three or four pages after the distribution of preceding formes suggests
We are now in a better position to consider the question of lineation that was raised earlier. If they had been setting by formes, the compositors may sometimes have lined verse as prose, just as they may sometimes have set extra lines in a type page, in order to adjust the actual space being consumed by text to the estimated space. But as they were setting seriatim, there would seem to be no very strong reason why they should deliberately misline Mardonius' speech, or any other for that matter. This is not to say that they may never have changed the lineation of their copy, but it is clear that they would have had no compelling mechanical reason for doing so. There is, then, a reasonably good chance that the compositors of A King and No King Q1 reproduced the lineation of the scribal transcript which was their copy. The scribe himself evidently wrestled from time to time with the lineation of the papers from which he worked, most notably in the scenes involving Bessus and the Swordmen (IV.iii and V.iii); but in the absence of evidence that he made changes, the lineation of the quarto should be followed when the editor is uncertain whether to print verse or prose.
TABLE I Running Titles
- I. B2-B1-C2-C1-D2-D1-E2-E1-F2-F3-G4-H4-I4-K4-L4-M2
- II. B1v-B2v-C1v-C2v-D1v-D2v-E1v-E2v- F1v-F4v-G3v-H1v-I1v-K1v-L1v-M1v- A3v
- III. B4-B3-C4-C3-D4-D3-E4-E3-F4-F1-G2-H2-I2-K2-L2-M1-A4
- IV. B3v-B4v-C3v-C4v-D3v-D4v-E3v-E4v- F3v-F2v-G1v-H3v-I3v-K3v-L3v-M2v
Skeleton I
- V. G1-H1-I1-K1-L1
- VI. G2v-H2v-I2v-K2v-L2v
- VII. G3-H3-I3-K3-L3
- VIII. G4v-H4v-I4v-K4v-L4v-A4v
Skeleton II
TABLE II Type Reappearances
Only the first reappearances from each distributed forme are listed. Citations are to page and line, excluding headline. Doubtful identifications are marked with a query. The Folger Shakespeare Library copy was examined.
| B(i) | type | B(o) | type | C(i) | type |
| c | B1v,15-C4,11 | L | B1,11-D1,36 | V | C2,9-D4,11 |
| E | B1v,34-C4,19 | h | B1,16-D1v,23 | M | C3v,10-D4v,20(?) |
| T | B2,15-C2v,21 | o | B2v,26-D1v,35 | K | C3v,11-D4v,17 |
| f | B2,20-C3,1(?) | p | B4v,7-D1v,27(?) | h | C3v,23-D4,35 |
| b | B2,24-C3,1 | o | B4v,25-D1,14 | g | C4,8-D3v,20 |
| T | B2,31-C2v,14 | ||||
| K | B3v,13-C3v,11 | ||||
| C(o) | type | D(i) | type | D(o) | type |
| T | C2v,21-E1v,34 | p | D1v,27-E4v,9(?) | ſ | D1,11-F1v,18 |
| f | C3,1-E1,9 | o | D1v,35-E4,35 | b | D1,32-F2,5 |
| b | C3,1-E1,21 | ſ | D2,8-E4v,8 | L | D1,36-F2v,26 |
| G | C3,8-E1v,32 | h | D4,22-E4,25 | t | D2v,25-F2,23 |
| d | C4v,19-E1v,12 | f | D4,35-E3v,12 | p | D2v,37-F2v,16 |
| K | C4v,21-E2v,30 | K | D4v,17-F3,36 | ||
| E(i) | type | E(o) | type | F(i) | type |
| d | E1v,12-F4,13 | b | E3,8-F4v,28 | T | F1v,37-G3v,28 |
| a | E1v,24-F4,29(?) | ſ | E4v,8-F4v,32 | b | F2,5-G4,9 |
| f | E3v,12-F3v,14 | p | E4v,9-F4v,29 | B | F3v,19-G3,15 |
| u | E4,36-F4,31 | V | F4,7-G4,15 | ||
| f | F4,27-G4,8 | ||||
| F(o) | type | G(i) | type | G(o) | type |
| h | F3,32-H1,11 | O | G1v,9-H2,16 | c | G3,23-I3,7 |
| b | F4v,28-H2v,11 | G | G1v,15-H3v,16 | A | G3,30-I2,37 |
| p | F4v,29-H3,5 | T | G1v,35-H2,15 | ||
| l | G2,7-H3v,13 | ||||
| A | G2,34-H3v,32 | ||||
| ſh | G3v,8-H3v,35 | ||||
| ſh | G3v,8-H3,34 | ||||
| T | G3v,28-H2,16 | ||||
| V | G4,15-H3v,cw | ||||
| H(i) | type | H(o) | type | I(i) | type |
| y | H1v,15-I2v,11 | l | H2v,36-K2v,38 | C | I1v,7-K4v,27 |
| h | H2,6-I3,5 | p | H3,5-K2,9 | g | I1v,25-K4v,34 |
| T | H2,16-I4v,11 | ſ | H3,13-K2,12 | h | I4,30-K3,25(?) |
| h | H2,21-I4,30 | ſh | H3,34-K3v,11(?) | ||
| g | H2,24-I3v,14 | b | H4v,14-K1,28 | ||
| g | H3v,14-I3,24 | f | H4v,22-K1v,33 | ||
| f | H3v,27-I3,34 | T | H4v,38-K1v,26 | ||
| c | H3v,28-I3v,1 | ||||
| V | H3v,cw-I3v,7(?) |
| I(o) | type | K(i) | type | K(o) | type |
| h | I3,5-K3v,6(?) | f | K1v,33-L4v,26 | b | K1,28-L4v,13 |
| f | I3,34-L3,17 | h | K2,2-L2,16 | h | K2v,5-L3,19 |
| m | I4v,22-L1v,4 | ſ | K2,12-L2,7 | ||
| b | K2,22-L2,31 | L(i) | type | ||
| h | K3v,6-L4,4 | V | L3v,36-M2v,5 | ||
| y | K3v,13-L2v,22 | ſſ | L4,12-M2,13 |
TABLE III Substitutions
| B | C | D | ||||||||||||||||||
| 1 | 1v | 2 | 2v | 3 | 3v | 4 | 4v | 1 | 1v | 2 | 2v | 3 | 3v | 4 | 4v | 1 | 1v | 2 | 2v | |
| W | 2 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 4 | -- | 2 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 4 | -- | 2 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 2 |
| VV or vv | -- | 1 | 8 | 1 | 5 | 6 | 3 | 7 | -- | 3 | 1 | 4 | -- | 1 | 1 | -- | -- | -- | -- | 1 |
| D | E | F | ||||||||||||||||||
| 3 | 3v | 4 | 4v | 1 | 1v | 2 | 2v | 3 | 3v | 4 | 4v | 1 | 1v | 2 | 2v | 3 | 3v | 4 | 4v | |
| W | -- | 5 | 1 | -- | 3 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 7 | 2 | 2 | -- | 1 | 1 | -- | -- | -- | 1 | 4 |
| VV or vv | 1 | -- | 3 | 5 | -- | 1 | 4 | 1 | 4 | -- | -- | -- | 1 | -- | -- | 1 | 2 | -- | -- | -- |
| G | H | I | ||||||||||||||||||
| 1 | 1v | 2 | 2v | 3 | 3v | 4 | 4v | 1 | 1v | 2 | 2v | 3 | 3v | 4 | 4v | 1 | 1v | 2 | 2v | |
| W | 1 | -- | 1 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 1 | -- | -- | 2 | -- | 6 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 2 | -- | 2 | -- |
| VV or vv | -- | 1 | 2 | -- | 1 | -- | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 3 | 1 | -- | -- | -- | 1 |
| I | K | L | ||||||||||||||||||
| 3 | 3v | 4 | 4v | 1 | 1v | 2 | 2v | 3 | 3v | 4 | 4v | 1 | 1v | 2 | 2v | 3 | 3v | 4 | 4v | |
| W | 2 | 1 | 4 | 1 | -- | -- | 5 | 1 | 3 | 3 | 1 | -- | 2 | -- | 4 | 4 | -- | 3 | 1 | -- |
| VV or vv | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | -- | -- | -- | 2 | 1 | 2 | 1 | -- | -- | 4 | -- | 3 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 1 |
| M | A | |||||||||||||||||||
| 1 | 1v | 2 | 2v | 2v | 3 | 3v | 4 | 4v | ||||||||||||
| W | -- | 5 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 3 | -- | 1 | 4 | |||||||||||
| VV or vv | 1 | 3 | 3 | 4 | -- | -- | 1 | 1 | 1 |
Notes
See, for instance, George R. Price, "Setting by Formes in the First Edition of The Phoenix," PBSA, LVI (1962), 414-427; John Russell Brown, "The Printing of John Webster's Plays (III): The Duchess of Malfi," Studies in Bibliography, XV (1962), 57-69; John Hazel Smith, "The Composition of the Quarto of Much Ado About Nothing," Studies in Bibliography, XVI (1963), 9-26.
W. W. Greg, A Bibliography of the English Printed Drama to the Restoration, II (1951), 504-505. The printer, whose name does not appear in the imprint, is identified by means of ornaments used in the book.
This Sir Henry Neville (1588-1629), the son of an eminent Elizabethan courtier and diplomat of the same name, was at Lincoln's Inn in 1614 (Joseph Foster, Alumni Oxonienses, III [Early Series], 1058). C. M. Gayley suggests that the elder Sir Henry may have been the original owner of the manuscript to which Walkley apparently refers (Francis Beaumont: Dramatist [1914], pp. 145-149.)
Shakespeare First Folio (1955), p. 154, n. 1. Greg points out that some ten years earlier Blount seems to have obliged the players in a similar fashion by entering Pericles and Antony and Cleopatra, neither of which was printed at the time.
In The Works of Francis Beaumont and John Fletcher (Variorum Edition: London, 1904), I, 301-302.
That Q1 must be the copy-text is shown by Berta Sturman, "The Second Quarto of A King and No King, 1625," Studies in Bibliography, IV (1951-52), 166-170.
See Appendix: Table II. For a discussion of the pattern of type reappearances in a quarto set by formes, see my "Printing Methods and Textual Problems in A Midsummer Night's Dream Q1," Studies in Bibliography, XV (1962), 35-55.
See Appendix: Table III. The compositors seem often to have substituted when they had W's in the case, but they also tended to use W's rather than VV's or vv's just after a distribution was made.
In Sheet A I find no types from L(o) or M but the following from L(i): M L1v,25-A3v,13; h L2,16-A4,30; b L2,31-A3v, 30; d L4,15-A3,15(?). I suppose, therefore, that Sheet A was composed after Sheet M and before the distribution of L(o) and M.
Aside from the difference in signatures, I find no means to distinguish the work of the two compositors. Their spelling characteristics are very similar, and neither, as far as I can tell, had any preference in details of typography not shared by his fellow. From the editor's point of view, this likeness is probably all to the good, for it may mean that both men followed copy closely, thus producing a relatively unsophisticated print.
| | |