University of Virginia Library

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 (M4v and P3-4v). 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.