V. Conclusions
Quire G was selected for discussion here in part because it illustrates
how the evidence reveals variations on what was actually the fundamental
method of composition. When unencumbered by special circumstances, the
compositors seem to have divided the work evenly as they did in Quire G,
but while one set 2v-2-1v-1, in that order,
the other set
3-3v-4-4v, in that order, thus producing
the formes in the order
2v:3-2:3v:4-1:4v. This
routine technique may be seen, for
example, in the graph and spelling chart for Quire H. ("H" and "R" here
represent recurring heads and rules.) One notable feature of this array is the
proof it gives of the value of the typographical evidence. On the basis of
spellings alone, it would seem that H3a had been set by Compositor A, but
the clear indication that the column was composed at Case B shows that it
was probably set by Compositor B, even though none of his preferred
spellings is found there. It also may be noted that heads and
non-skeleton rules were not treated like types; B used a head that previously
appeared in material distributed into A's case, and he removed rules from
G4va for reemployment in H3va before
he distributed G4v
type.
The normal method of composition illustrated in Quire H did not
emerge until Quire C, and after that it was often modified either to gain
some fairly obvious technical advantages or in response, presumably, to
some more obscure exigency. Quires A and B were divided in a rather
complicated fashion to which the nature of the copy, the commitment of the
compositors to other work, or both may have given rise. In Quire D,
1v:4 seems to have been the first forme set to the press
because
D1v is a blank, a fact which permitted the forme to be
made ready for
imposition with half the usual expenditure of effort; yet again the unusual
nature of the copy for D1 (prologues and epilogues which probably
occupied separate manuscript sheets) and Compositor B's assignment to
some task other than typesetting (which involved him as long as the setting
of E2v:3) evidently had an effect. Similar causes seem to
have affected
the order of Quire F, in which F3v is a short page, but it
is not
clear why the compositors, after collaborating on F2:3v
(if B set F2),
found it convenient or necessary each to set a forme independently, unless
the fact that The Captaine, another unit of copy, begins on
F4
had something to do with it. Nor is it clear why they departed in Quire G
from the usual sequence (which would have required Compositor A to set
G4v and Compositor B G1). It is usually true, however,
that alterations
in the basic technique of composition are associated with some peculiar
feature of the copy to
be got in the quire, as at Quires M and P, where short pages or blanks
occur (M4
v and P3-4
v). Here lies the
limitation of the kind of
evidence employed: although it commonly tells what happened, it cannot
tell why; to seek the reasons for the bibliographical oddities revealed by the
analysis, one must go to the text, changing his role from bibliographical
analyst to textual critic.
The evidence, however, is not always unequivocal. In a few
instances, most notably in Quire N, it was impossible definitely to decide
how the material was composed or by whom. One suspects that the pattern
of type reappearances in these instances was disturbed by the intervening
composition and distribution of non-Folio matter, but since the investigation
did not range into Wilson's other books, it is impossible to say more on this
point. In addition, while one of the compositors, A, had sufficiently
pronounced preferences in spelling to permit identification of his work with
tolerable certainty, the other, B, was less steady in his preferences, perhaps
being more responsive to copy spellings. Although this characteristic helps
sometimes to distinguish his work from A's, it more often makes
identification difficult, and it creates the possibility that Compositor B was
actually two men rather than one. No means was discovered, however, to
show that a Compositor C occasionally
had a hand in the material now attributed to Compositor B, and the
evidence indicates, on the whole, that Section 2 was set up by no more than
a pair of compositors, one of whom was somewhat erratic in his spelling.
Of the two, Compositor A set substantially more type than B.
The following scheme represents the order of printing and shows the
compositors responsible for the various parts of Section 2. A notation like
"B2a1" or "D11" represents a
part-column or part-page, the extent
of which is indicated below the main listing; (b) represents a blank.